THE  LIBRARY 
OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF 
ERNEST  CARROLL  MOORE 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    FRENCH 
REVOLUTION 


A  HISTORY 


BY 
WILLIAM   B.   GUTHRIE,  PH.D. 

INSTRUCTOR  IN   HISTORY,   COLLEGE  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK, 

LECTURER  IN   SOCIAL  SCIENCE  UNDER  THE  BOARD  OF 

EDUCATION,  AND  ON   FOREIGN  INVESTMENTS  IN 

THE  SCHOOL  OF  COMMERCE  AND  FINANCE 

OF  NEW  YORK  UNIVERSITY 


Nefo  gorfc 
THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

LONDON:  MACMILLAN  &  CO..  LTD. 
1907 

All  rights  rtttrvtd 


COPYRIGHT,  1907, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  June,  1907. 


Xcrtocofi 

J.  8.  Gushing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


Co 

MY  FATHER  AND   SISTER 

THIS   VOLUME 

IS  AFFECTIONATELY 

INSCRIBED 


1567383 


INTRODUCTION 

ENGLISH  literature  has  been  singularly  deficient 
in  the  history  of  social  theory,  and  it  is  especially 
in  the  domain  of  social  reform  that  this  gap  has 
been  most  evident.  The  present-day  socialist  move- 
ment has  so  engrossed  the  attention  of  most  ob- 
servers that  even  the  historical  studies  of  this  subject 
have  been  largely  confined  to  the  period  since  the 
French  Revolution  and  particularly  to  that  of  so- 
called  scientific  socialism.  The  foreign  literatures 
have  paid  slightly  more  attention  to  some  of  the 
movements  from  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  but 
there  is  to-day  no  satisfactory  general  account  in 
any  language  of  socialist  doctrines  before  the  end 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  study  of  Mr.  Guthrie 
is  therefore  to  be  welcomed  as  the  first  comprehen- 
sive attempt  to  fill  the  gap. 

It  will  be  easy  for  the  reader  to  discern  that  the 
author  is  well  fitted  for  the  task  which  he  has  al- 
lotted to  himself.  A  thorough  familiarity  with  the 
foreign  languages,  a  wide  acquaintance  with  the 
details  of  the  literature,  and  a  grasp  of  the  economic 
principles  involved,  —  these  are  some  of  the  charac- 
teristics of  this  little  book.  But  there  are  especially 


Viii  INTRODUCTION 

two  points  to  which  it  is  well  to  call  attention  as  the 
distinctive  contributions  of  the  work. 

The  first  is  the  recognition  on  the  part  of  the 
author  that  social  theory  is  the  outgrowth  of  social 
conditions.  The  truth  of  this  statement  is  nowa- 
days apt  to  be  recognized  in  connection  with  ordinary 
economic  doctrines ;  but  it  has  usually  been  assumed 
that  the  theories  of  the  idealists,  as  pure  figments  of 
the  imagination,  are  disconnected  with  actual  life, 
and  that  all  the  Utopias  are  to  be  put  in  the  category 
of  ordinary  fairy  tales.  A  more  attentive  study  of 
the  facts,  however,  is  sufficient  to  make  us  realize 
that,  from  the  time  of  Plato  down  to  the  present,  the 
social  idealists  have  stood  with  one  foot  on  terra 
firma,  and  that  even  the  Utopian  dreams  have  had 
a  more  or  less  intimate  connection  with  the  sober 
facts  of  every-day  life.  Mr.  Guthrie  has  been  wise 
in  realizing  this  and  in  endeavoring  to  trace  the 
relation  between  the  actual  environment  of  the  au- 
thor and  the  character  of  his  doctrines. 

The  second  point  is  that  the  work  is  calculated  to 
bring  home  to  the  ordinary  reader  the  fact  that  social 
strivings  and  social  ideals  are  by  no  means  confined 
to  the  nineteenth  or  twentieth  centuries.  It  is  indeed 
true  that  the  stupendous  industrial  changes  of  the 
last  hundred  years  have  brought  to  the  fore  a  pecul- 
iarly intensive  species  of  socialism  which  could  not 
have  previously  existed  where  the  economic  phe- 


INTRODUCTION  ix 

nomena  themselves  did  not  exist.  We  have,  how- 
ever, been  too  long  under  the  obsession  of  the  idea 
that  socialism  is  a  distinctively  modern  movement. 
Even  as  a  practical  movement,  socialism  is  by  no 
means  modern.  Not  to  speak  of  the  great,  and 
still  only  partly  studied,  revolutions  of  classic  an- 
tiquity, the  history  of  mediaeval  Europe  abounds  in 
more  or  less  sharply  denned  socialistic  tendencies. 
What  is  true  of  the  socialist  movement  is  no  less 
true  of  the  doctrine  of  social  reform.  Mr.  Guthrie's 
book,  as  I  understand  it,  is  not  an  attempt  to  present 
an  exhaustive  account  of  this  movement,  for  as  such 
it  would  indeed  be  open  to  criticism  as  omitting  the 
writers  of  the  earlier  Middle  Ages.  But  as  an  en- 
deavor to  give  a  general  view  of  these  doctrines 
from  the  time  of  More  to  the  Revolution,  it  will  un- 
doubtedly serve  a  useful  purpose.  As  such  it  forms 
another  contribution  to  the  general  history  of  eco- 
nomic and  social  ideas  which  still  remains  to  be 
written,  and  which  never  can  be  adequately  written 
until  the  way  has  been  prepared  by  monographs  of 
which  the  present  is  a  fitting  type. 

EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN. 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY, 
May,  1907. 


PREFACE 

ONE  of  the  principal  propositions  maintained  in 
this  study  is  that  many  of  the  ideas  of  modern  so- 
cialism, in  its  varied  forms,  were  suggested  more  or 
less  clearly,  before  the  French  Revolution,  either  in 
the  writings  of  scholars  or  in  the  activities  of  the 
organized  society  of  the  period.  The  attempt  is  here 
made,  therefore,  to  gather  up  and  to  systematize  the 
early  ideas  and  ideals  from  the  most  important 
sources,  hi  order  to  ascertain  what  debt  the  present 
owes  the  past  in  this  field  of  social  thought.  It  is 
also  contended  that  the  conditions  favorable  to  the 
growth  of  a  socialistic  theory  and  practice  show 
themselves,  to  some  extent  at  least,  when,  after  the 
Reformation,  the  mediaeval  system  gradually  disap- 
peared. Conditions  of  that  time  are  therefore  briefly 
sketched  and  the  larger  features  of  that  environment 
set  forth  in  which  it  is  claimed  the  protest  and  pro- 
paganda of  socialism  took  rise.  An  effort  is  also 
made  to  discover  and  set  forth  any  more  general, 
abstract  principles  which  from  time  to  time  appeared 
and  may  be  considered  the  philosophic  basis  and 
the  logical  justification  for  socialism.  Moreover,  the 
writings  here  analyzed  will  be  found  to  yield  certain 


xii  PREFACE 

very  definite,  concrete  theories,  which,  it  is  main- 
tained, have  been  laid  hold  of  by  modern  socialism 
and  consciously  or  unconsciously  appropriated.  Fur- 
thermore, socialism,  as  here  defined,  will  be  treated, 
in  both  its  method  and  matter,  in  its  relation  to  social 
theory  and  interpretation.  Attention  will  therefore 
be  paid  to  the  social  ideas  of  the  works  examined 
as  they  form  a  part  of,  and  take  a  place  in,  the  de- 
velopment of  social  theories. 

No  attempt  is  made  to  discuss  all  the  works  ap- 
pearing in  the  period  here  studied,  which  was  rather 
prolific  in  this  kind  of  literature;  such  an  attempt 
would  lead  in  this  case,  as  it  has  done  in  so  many 
cases,  to  a  mere  annotated  bibliography.1  Certain 
writers  will  be  exhaustively  studied  in  connection 
with  those  conditions  giving  rise  to  and  aiding  in 
the  growth  of  their  social  ideas  and  ideals. 

No  apology  is  offered  for  a  study  of  the  revolu- 
tionary social  doctrines  of  a  period  when  it  may  be 
supposed  very  little  of  importance  was  written  or 
done.  A  justification,  if  such  there  be,  must  lie  in 
the  fact  that  during  this  age  appeared  many  works 
of  a  peculiar  nature,  which  have  been  largely  ignored, 
at  least  by  English  students.  It  may  be  further 
objected  that  such  writings  are  not  strictly  socialistic, 
at  least  as  that  term  is  understood  to-day.  In  an- 

1  Von  Mohl,  "  Die  Geschichte  und  Literatur  der  Staatswissen- 
schaften,"  in  Monographieen  dargestellt,  Erlangen,  1855-58,  3  vol. 


PREFACE  xiii 

swer  it  may  be  said  that  this  term  as  later  defined 
comes  nearer  including  this  literature  than  any  classi- 
fication yet  made  of  it.  It  is  held  that  close  generic 
relationship  exists  between  earlier  and  later  social- 
istic doctrines;  though  direct  descent  is  difficult  to 
establish  and  in  many  instances  must  rest  upon  pre- 
sumptive evidence. 

The  author  wishes  to  make  grateful  acknowledg- 
ments to  Professor  John  Bates  Clark,  under  whose 
instruction  serious  interest  was  awakened  in  social 
subjects ;  to  Professor  Edwin  R.  A.  Seligman,  under 
whom  this  work  was  carried  on  and  whose  counsel 
has  been  helpful  at  every  point;  and  to  Professor 
Henry  R.  Seager,  whose  kind  suggestions  made  the 
way  clearer.  W.  B.  G. 

NEW  YORK  CITY, 
May,  1907. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 

PACE 

INTRODUCTION ' .  1-53 

SECTION 

1.  Bibliography I 

2.  Definitions 7 

3.  Socialism  and  Kindred  Systems 10 

4.  Two  Views  of  Society   .         .        .         .        .         .        .17 

5.  Principles  Common  to  Socialists 21 

6.  Academic  Nature  of  Early  Socialism      ....  34 

7.  Schools  of  Socialism 39 

8.  Features  of  the  Period  Covered 43 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  BEGINNING   OF  SOCIAL  UNREST 
IN   ENGLAND 

1.  Thomas  More  the  Central  Figure 54 

2.  Facts  of  his  Life 54 

3.  Historic  Setting  of  "Utopia" 60 

4.  The  Emergence  of  the  "  Social  Problem  "     ...  68 

5.  Growth  of  Social  Unrest 78 

6.  Reactionary  Nature  of  Socialism 82 

7.  Decline  of  Asceticism 87 

CHAPTER   III 

THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES   OF  SIR  THOMAS 
MORE 

PART  I 

1.  General  Considerations 92 

2.  Divisions  of "  Utopia " 93 


xviii  CONTENTS 


SECTION 

3.  Theory  of  Perfectibility       ..... 

PACK 

4.   Environment  Theory  

.       255 

5.   Theory  of  Property     

•       257 

6.   Problem  of  Supplying  Economic  Motives    . 

.       26l 

7.   Type  of  Social  Organization        .... 

.       263 

8.   No  Leisure  Class         

.       264 

9.   Theory  of  Distribution         

.       26S 

10.   Theory  of  Social  Unity        

.       268 

1  1  .   Plan  of  Education        

.       271 

12.   Estimate  of  Morelly     

•       273 

CHAPTER  VIII 

REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS 

I.  Emergence  of  Classes          

.       276 

2.  Growth  of  Definite  Ideas     

.       280 

3.  Was  there  Socialism  in  the  Revolution? 

.       28l 

4.   Theories  of  Boissel      

.       282 

5.   Attack  on  Property     

.       284 

6.   Theory  of  Distribution         

.       286 

7.   Attitude  toward  Culture       

.       286 

8.   Relation  to  Morelly     

.       288 

9.  Babeuf  —  an  Agitator  

.       289 

10.   The  Theories  of  Saint-Just  

•       297 

II.   Attacks  on  Institutions        

.       299 

12.   Teachings  of  Abbe*  Mably  

•       300 

13.   Linguet       

•       304 

•?o? 

CHAPTER  IX 

314 

INDEX 

333 

SOCIALISM    BEFORE   THE    FRENCH 
REVOLUTION 


SOCIALISM    BEFORE    THE 
FRENCH    REVOLUTION: 

A  HISTORY 

CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

i.  There  are  in  this  as  in  other  fields  of  thought 
several  kinds  of  literature  to  be  examined.  There  is, 
it  may  be  said,  a  relatively  small  amount  of  original 
material  that  was  written  with  a  conscious  socialistic 
bias.  Quantitatively  the  original  sources  setting  forth 
the  thought  of  the  times  are,  as  compared  with  those 
more  modern,  of  rather  slight  importance.  Under  the 
head  of  those  works  here  called  more  or  less  clearly 
socialistic,  chief  stress  will  be  laid  upon  the  "Utopia" 
of  Sir  Thomas  More,  "City  of  the  Sun"  by  Thomas 
Campanella,  Bacon's  "New  Atlantis,"  and  Harring- 
ton's "Oceana";  while  the  "Basiliade"  and  the 
"Code  de  la  Nature,"  both  by  Morelly,  will  mark  the 
close  of  the  period. 

There  is,  then,  considerable  literature  from  the  pens 
of  contemporaries  which  helps  to  an  understanding  of 


2         SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

these  earlier  writers  and  their  peculiar  views.  Among 
these  may  be  cited  by  way  of  illustration  Latimer's 
"Sermons,"  Fitzherbert's  "Farming,"  and  the  "Dia- 
logues" by  Thomas  Starkey.  In  the  later  period 
reference  will  be  made  to  the  writings  of  Rousseau, 
D'Holbach,  Helve*tius,  and  kindred  authors,  as  from 
them  inspiration  and  suggestions  were  drawn  by  their 
contemporaries  and  also  by  later  socialistic  writers. 

Amidst  the  vast  amount  of  descriptive  and  historical 
literature  bearing  on  socialism  there  is  considerable 
touching  this  period.  Much  good  historical  work  was 
done  about  the  time  of  the  downfall  of  the  Utopian 
school,  or  from  about  1840  on  for  a  decade.  Among 
such  writers  stand  Pierre  Leroux,1  who  wrote  with  a 
strong  socialistic  bias,  and  Louis  Reybaud,2  who  was  as 
severely  critical  as  Leroux  was  sympathetic.  Two 
German  writers  have  also  left  monuments  to  their 
extensive  historical  research:  Von  Mohl  in  his  "Ge- 
schichte  der  Literatur"  and  Lorenz  von  Stein,  "Der 
Socialismus  und  Kommunismus  des  heutigen  Frank- 
reichs."  The  historical  investigation  into  the  field  of 
socialism  begins  with  the  opening  of  the  historical 
school  in  economics,  and  had  its  development  during 
the  period  when  Roscher,  Hildebrand,  and  Knies  were 

1  Leroux,  "De  1'egalite","  1848;  "  De  1'humanitg,"  etc.,  2  v.,  1845. 
1  Reybaud,  "  Etudes  sur  les    re*fonnateurs  ou   socialistes    mo- 
dernes."    1856. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

working  in  the  field  of  historical  economics.  While 
the  historical  method  was  being  applied  to  social  study 
by  the  father  of  scientific  socialism,  Karl  Marx,  a  new 
stimulus  was  given  this  historical  writing  by  the  stirring 
events  of  the  early  seventies,  and  for  some  years  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  literature  appeared.  In  this  work 
France  leads,  and  the  writings  of  such  men  as  Adolphe 
Franck,1  Benoit  Malon,2  and  Janet3  show  an  increas- 
ing interest  in  the  historical  development  of  socialism. 
Naturally  the  work  in  historical  lines  increased  as 
original  investigations  and  theorizing  subsided. 

This  period  corresponds  with  the  rise  of  the  evolu- 
tionary philosophy,  with  the  breakdown  of  Utopian 
socialism,  with  the  birth  of  scientific  socialism,  and 
with  the  revolutionary  movements  in  England  and 
France.  In  the  nineties  another  group  of  writers  began 
the  historical  investigation  of  early  socialism.  This 
period  was  marked  by  the  appearance  of  the  work  of 
a  coterie  of  German  writers,  among  whom  may  be 
mentioned  Eduard  Bernstein,  Karl  Kautsky,  Paul 
Lafargue,  and  others.4  Their  extensive  historical  work 
did  for  the  general  field  of  socialism  what  this  study 

1  "  Re'formateurs  et  publicistes  de  1'Europe."     1864-1893. 

1  "  Histoire  du  socialisme  depuis  ses  engines  probables  jusqu'k 
nos  jours."  1879. 

1  "  Les  origines  du  socialisme  contemporain."    1883. 

4  "Die  Geschichte  des  Sozialismus  in  Einzelndarstellungen,"  von 
E.  Bernstein,  C.  Hugo,  K.  Kautsky,  P.  Lafargue,  Franz  Mehring, 
G.  Plechanow,  2  v.,  1895. 


4         SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

pretends  to  do  for  a  limited  portion.  As  Reybaud  had 
much  earlier  done  in  France,  these  writers  traced 
modern  socialism  back  to  its  more  remote  origins. 
During  the  following  years  much  careful  work  was 
done  on  the  history  of  socialism.  In  this  connection  it 
is  probably  true  that  the  best  work  has  been  done  in 
France.  French  writers  are  apt  to  show  less  bias  for 
or  against  than  the  Germans.  They  are  broader  and 
more  serious  in  their  treatment  than  the  Americans, 
while  they  are  free  from  the  narrowness  of  the  English 
students.  Among  the  French  writers  of  first  impor- 
tance should  certainly  be  mentioned  Andre*  Lichten- 
berger,1  whose  careful  and  exhaustive  researches  into 
French  sources  have  done  much  to  illuminate  the 
Revolutionary  period  and  to  set  the  parties  and  their 
principles  in  their  proper  perspective.  He  has  also 
gone  back  to  the  period  before  the  Revolution  and  dis- 
cussed the  theories  contained  in  literature  heretofore 
neglected,  but  which  presents  very  much  of  interest  to 
students  of  socialism  in  its  historical  development.  The 
work  of  Frederick  Engels  in  Germany  deserves  special 
mention  for  various  reasons.  In  his  "Socialism, 
Utopian  and  Scientific,"  he  has  done  valuable  service 
in  explaining  the  origin  of  modern  scientific  socialism 

1  "  Le  Socialisme  au  XVIII*  siecle."  1895.  "Le  Socialisme  et 
la  Revolution  francaise ;  Etudes  sur  les  idees  socialistes  en  France 
de  1789  a  1796."  1899.  "Le  Socialisme  Utopique;  Etudes  sur 
quelques  pre"curseurs  inconnus  du  Socialisme."  1898. 


INTRODUCTION  5 

in  its  relation  to  German  philosophy.1  His  close  asso- 
ciation with  Karl  Marx  for  nearly  half  a  century 
specially  fitted  him  to  speak  authoritatively  on  his 
doctrines  and  also  to  be  critic  and  editor  of  the  works 
of  his  master.  The  very  suggestive  study  made  by 
Anton  Menger,  translated  under  the  title  "The  Right 
to  the  Whole  Produce  of  Labor,"  should  be  consulted 
on  the  historical  side,  setting  forth  as  it  does  the  de- 
velopment of  certain  principles  of  modern  socialism.2 
Miss  Peixotto  deals  with  the  historical  evolution  of  cer- 
tain doctrines  which  have  persisted  to  the  present  time, 
and  by  throwing  the  earlier  theories  into  comparison 
with  the  later,  she  has  made  a  most  valuable  contribu- 
tion to  the  literature  of  historical  criticism.3  Frederick 
Seebohm  has  published  a  good  work  allied  to  the 
present  study,  entitled  "Oxford  Reformers,"  which 
deals  with  the  origin  of  social  discontent  in  England 
in  the  period  following  the  Reformation.4  Of  the 
literature  discussing  this  particular  period  only  a  word 
will  be  said.  Much  has  been  written  concerning  the 

1 "  Die  Entwicklung  des  Socialismus  von  Utopie  zur  Wissen- 
schaft."  Berlin,  1891. 

1  "  Das  Recht  auf  den  vollen  Arbeitsertrag,  in  geschichtliche 
Darstellung." 

3  Peixotto,  "The  French  Revolution  and  Modern  French  Social- 
ism :   a  comparative  study  of  the   principles  of  the   French  Revolu- 
tion and  the  doctrine  of  modern  French  socialism,"  1901. 

4  Seebohm,  "  The  Oxford  Reformers,  John  Colet,  Erasmus,  and 
Thomas  More."      1887. 


"Utopia"  and  its  noted  author,  Thomas  More.  In- 
deed, since  its  first  appearance  students  have  busied 
themselves  with  investigations  concerning  the  author, 
his  theories,  and  their  place  in  history.  Few  have, 
however,  treated  More  in  his  relation  to,  and  signifi- 
cance for,  socialism  and  its  development.  Professor 
Seebohm  has  dwelt  upon  this  side  of  More's  work. 
Karl  Kautsky  has  treated  the  social  theories  of  More 
in  an  interesting  volume,  the  best  thing  that  has  yet 
appeared  on  the  socialism  of  Thomas  More.1  Of 
Campanella  and  his  works,  "Discourses  touching 
the  Spanish  Monarchy  "  and  "City  of  the  Sun,"  it  may 
be  said  that  nothing  has  been  written  in  English. 
Slight  notice  has  been  given  him  in  French  as  in  "R6- 
formateurs  et  publicistes  de  1'Europe,"  by  Adolphe 
Franck,  but  considerable  has  been  written  of  Cam- 
panella in  Italian.  Much  of  this  literature,  however, 
deals  with  the  philosopher  only.  Very  little  attention 
has  been  paid  to  Morelly  or  his  writings;  an  obscure 
author,  little  known  to  his  own  age,  his  leading  work 
attributed  to  Diderot  for  half  a  century,  he  was  in  a 
position  to  be  neglected. 

So  extensive  is  the  literature  on  socialism  that  any 
attempt  at  a  complete  bibliography  would  be  to  little 
purpose.  Outside  this  brief  reference  the  footnotes 

1 "  Thomas  More  u.  seine  Utopie ;  mit  einer  historischen  Einlei- 
tung."  1888. 


INTRODUCTION  7 

must  supply  the  citations  on  the  particular  aspects  of 
the  subject  taken  up. 

2.  Socialism  as  a  system  of  thought  and  action,  falling 
within  the  sphere  of  human  activities,  may  be  traced 
historically  either  as  an  actual  social  movement  or  as  a 
development  of  a  peculiar  type  of  social  theory ;  on  the 
one  side,  it  would  deal  with  a  set  of  concrete  social 
facts ;  on  the  other,  with  a  body  of  theoretical  principles, 
a  system  of  social  thought.  The  distinction,  therefore, 
should  be  made  in  this  case  that  applies  to  the  study  of 
economic  history  and  the  history  of  economics;  or  to 
the  study  of  politics  and  political  history.  The  system 
of  thought  set  forth  in  the  masterly  writings  of  Karl 
Marx  who  started  as  a  communist  and  ended  as  a 
socialist;  who  began  as  a  radical  and  became  a  con- 
servative ; 1  who  started  as  a  propagandist  and  ended  as 
a  philosopher  —  his  system  might  perhaps  be  called 
typically  socialistic  from  the  standpoint  of  theory. 

Socialism  viewed  either  as  a  social  theory  or  as  a 
practical  system  of  social  action  means,  in  the  large, 
the  carrying  the  public  or  social  control  ever  farther 
into  the  sphere  so  far  occupied  by  the  individual;  it 
means  the  setting  aside  the  so-called  natural,  social,  and 
economic  laws  through  the  intervention  of  the  social 
will  operating  consciously  and  in  an  absolute,  sovereign 

1  The  comparison  here  made  has  to  do  with  the  socialism  of  Marx 
and  that  radical  and  unreasoned  communism  of  the  prerevolutionary 
kind. 


8         SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

manner  as  against  the  individual  will.  That  it  has  one 
class  in  view  as  against  another  seems  not  to  be  an 
essential  to  the  concept  of  socialism.  That  the  motive 
toward  an  enlargement  of  the  social  control  would  be 
apt  to  arise  within  the  ranks  of  commonalty  may  be 
and  probably  is  true ;  it  does  not  at  all  change  the  na- 
ture of  that  social  process  called  socialistic.  That  the 
masses  in  the  lower  strata  tend  to  move  in  the  direction 
of  socialism  merely  means  that  there  lies  potentially 
the  excess  of  power  which  is  seeking  a  new  centre  of 
equilibrium  in  industrial  spheres;  as,  in  the  political 
world  democracy  denotes  the  shifting  the  political 
power  to  a  new  centre. 

It  is  natural  to  inquire  whether  there  has  ever  been 
any  realization  of  the  scheme  of  socialism  worth  the 
name.  Has  there  ever  been  any  regime  in  human 
experience  which  might  be  called  socialistic?  Has 
the  ideal  ever  been  approached  or  does  the  discussion 
begin  and  end  in  the  interesting  but  rather  barren  field 
of  pure  theory?  Men  have  written,  and  most  ex- 
tensively, upon  political  doctrines;  but  back  of  these 
and  to  a  large  extent  their  source,  from  Aristotle  down, 
has  been  the  history  of  actual  political  society.  Many 
theories  of  economic  life  have  been  advanced  in  more  or 
less  logical  systems ;  these  have  been  founded,  however, 
in  most  part  upon  the  facts  of  the  economic  process 
and  have  been  attempts  either  to  explain  or  justify  it. 


INTRODUCTION  9 

Proudhon  defined  political  economy  as  a  collection  of 
observations  thus  far  made  with  regard  to  the  phenom- 
ena of  the  distribution  and  production  of  wealth.  A 
history  of  political  economy,  then,  is  a  record  of  men's 
subjective  attitude  toward  a  set  of  objective  facts.  Can 
the  same  thing  be  said  of  the  history  of  socialism? 
Has  there  ever  been  a  set  of  facts  corresponding  to  the 
general  theory  of  socialism,  or  is  it  merely  a  result  of 
another  attitude  of  mind  assumed  toward  the  normal 
individualistic  economic  order?  It  is  here  contended 
that  socialism  is  largely  an  attitude  of  mind  assumed 
toward  the  existing  economic  order.  As  a  result  of 
conflict  there  has  been  at  times  an  approach  toward  the 
socialistic  ideal.  The  final  antithesis  of  individualism 
is  socialism,  and  the  form  and  process  of  human  society, 
industrially  considered,  have  gravitated  toward  one  of 
these  two  poles.  Never  has  society  gone  to  absolute 
individualism;  much  less  has  any  very  perfect  expres- 
sion of  the  opposite  been  found. 

Socialism,  then,  in  so  far  as  it  has  existed,  has  been  a 
compromise,  and  it  will  probably  never  be  more  than 
this.  Socialism  is  not  an  absolute  fact  to  be  attained 
and  maintained ;  it  is  rather  a  method  of  social  develop- 
ment —  one  side  of  a  social  process,  and  is  hence  a 
continual  becoming.  Bitter  antagonisms  have  been 
and  must  be  allayed ;  the  larger  conflict  has  ever  been 
between  the  individual  and  the  social  will;  and  social- 


IO       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

ism,  when  it  exists,  will  be  found  to  be  a  synthesis  of 
these  two  enduring  antagonisms.  Proudhon  compares 
socialism  to  the  god  Vishnu,  ever  dying  and  yet  ever 
returning  to  life;  it  has  experienced  within  a  score  of 
years  its  ten  thousandth  incarnation  in  the  persons  of 
five  or  six  revelators.  Large  inroads  have  been  made 
into  the  field  of  private  initiative  and  of  individual  con- 
trol of  industrial  affairs.  The  whole  area  has  never 
been  covered  by  the  control  of  organized  society; 
neither  is  there  much  probability  that  it  will  be.  A 
reaction  is  always  sure  to  come  before  the  extreme  of 
either  socialism  or  individualism  is  reached. 

Socialism  is,  then,  a  phase  and  method  of  the  histori- 
cal development  of  industrial  society.  The  term  may 
be  applied  to  either  a  process  or  a  condition  of  society. 
Viewed  and  treated  in  the  former  sense,  it  becomes 
historical,  matter  of  fact,  scientific;  considered  from 
the  other  view  point,  it  is  totally  unscientific,  and  theories 
concerning  such  a  social  structure  are  entirely  Utopian. 
Viewed  in  one  way,  the  study  of  socialism  reveals  a  very 
normal  process  of  social  evolution ;  seen  in  another  light 
as  a  finished  state  of  bliss  and  of  social  and  economic 
quietism,  it  is  imaginary,  unhistorical,  and  totally  im- 
practical. 

3.  With  these  very  general  limitations  stated,  social- 
ism may  with  profit  be  thrown  into  contrast  with  other 
systems  of  social  thought  more  or  less  akin.  Socialism 


INTRODUCTION  1 1 

has  been  considered  as  a  generic  term.  Of  the  types 
falling  under  this  head,  unquestionably  the  most  im- 
portant is  communism.1  Communism  may  be  called 
an  extreme  type  of  socialism.  It  is  a  grosser,  as  it  is  an 
earlier,  form  of  social  organization.  All  early  social 
structure  seems  to  have  been  a  form  of  communism.2 
It  is  therefore  fitted  to  an  earlier  stage  of  industrial 
organization.  Socialism  is  a  refinement,  fitted  to  a 
highly  organized  society.  Its  advocates  have  gen- 
erally contemplated  a  society  under  the  regime  of 
capitalism.  Socialism  would  so  order  industrial  society 
and  have  the  social  will  so  control  the  economic  process 
as  to  work  a  redistribution  of  the  accruing  product; 
communism  would  work  a  general  redistribution  of  the 
control  of  all  property  —  productive  and  consumptive. 
Of  the  two  communism  is  the  more  simple  and  logical. 
An  equal  quantitative  distribution  of  the  material 
wealth  regardless  of  problems  of  value  is  rather  a 
simple  and  workable  formula.  Communism  involves 
the  attempt  to  solve  the  social  problems  by  entirely 
abandoning  the  system  of  private  property.  It  would 
shift  the  industrial  structure  to  some  other  basis.  It 
means  a  reversion  to  a  more  primitive  society.  Com- 
munism is  the  antithesis  of  the  theory  of  orthodox 
economics.  One  sees  a  society  with  no  private  prop- 

1  Pierson,  "Stadhuishoudkunde,"  p.  49. 

*  Karl  Kautsky,  "  Vorlaufer  des  neueren  Socialismus,"  p.  3. 


12       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

erty ;  the  other  rests  its  entire  system  upon  the  principles 
of  private  ownership.  One  would  transform  the  state 
into  an  industrial  corporation;  the  other  sharply 
differentiates  the  state  as  a  political  organization. 
Socialism  tends  to  reconcile  these  two  opposites.  It 
has  opposed  and  ridiculed  orthodox  economics.  It 
has  been  developed  as  an  opposing  theory  to  the 
laissez-faire  doctrine  and  delights  to  reproach  the  do- 
nothing  "Manchesterthum"  of  the  English  school. 
When  separated  from  radical  communism  in  France  * 
in  the  later  thirties  and  in  Germany  in  the  later  forties, 
socialism  becomes  decidedly  conservative  and  tends  to 
shade  off  into  schemes  of  reform  in  Germany,  into  a 
philosophic  system  under  Karl  Marx,2  or  a  scheme  of 
collectivism  in  France  —  in  all  instances  tending  to 
lose  the  native  hue  of  resolution  and  become  sicklied 
o'er  with  the  pale  cast  of  thought  or  merged  into  the 
mellower  light  of  philanthropy.3  As  time  passes,  it  is 
diverted  into  a  variety  of  channels.  In  England  trades- 
unionism  rises  on  one  side  and  land-nationalization  on 
the  other.  In  Germany  the  conservative  element  com- 

^See  works  of  Pecqueur,  "Theorie  nouvelle  d' Economic  sociale  et 
politique,"  1842 ;  and  Vidal,  "  De  la  repartition  des  richesses,"  etc., 
1846. 

1  Marx  is  still  communist  of  a  radical  type  till  after  the  "  Mani- 
festo," 1847. 

3  See  schemes  of  Schultze-Delitzsch ;  cf .  attacks  of  Lassalle  on 
the  proposed  schemes  of  state  banks. 


INTRODUCTION  13 

promises  and  the  schemes  of  social  control  help  to 
weaken  the  cause  of  radical  socialism  in  practice,  while 
the  "Socialism  of  the  Chair"  helps  to  spike  the  guns  of 
the  radicals  from  the  standpoint  of  theory. 

The  constant  tendency,  therefore,  has  been  for  social- 
ism to  veer  about  toward  a  more  conservative  course,  and 
an  examination  of  the  recent  programmes  of  socialist 
congresses  shows  how  socialistic  sails  have  been  set 
to  catch  new  breezes  as  vast  industrial  changes  have 
brought  us  into  strange  and  untried  seas.  The  short 
and  simple  propaganda  of  communism  has  grown  into 
more  extended  proportions  as  into  the  programmes  has 
gone  a  vast  number  of  demands,  some  distinctly  within, 
many  falling  very  far  without,  the  economic  sphere.1 
Since  the  birth  of  collectivism  in  France,  the  tendency 
of  socialists  has  been  to  deal  with  the  productive  side  of 
the  economic  process.  This  was  true  of  the  collectivists. 
It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  massive  labors  of 
Karl  Marx,  to  whose  general  socialistic  theories  the 
analysis  of  the  process  of  value-production  was  vital, 
yielding  the  most  important  doctrine  yet  put  out  by 
socialism  —  that  of  "surplus  value." 

Other  socialists,  moderate  and  radical,  have  laid  the 
emphasis  upon  the  process  of  distribution.  This  was 
true  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  who  considered  that  the 

1  Kautsky,  "  Das  Erfurter  Programm  in  seinem  grundsatzlichen 
Theil  erlautert."  1892. 


14       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

process  of  production  was  under  the  control  of  natural 
laws,  but  that  the  distribution  of  wealth  was  a  social 
matter  to  be  controlled  by  the  social  will.1  Henry 
George  made  use  of  this  proposition, 2  and  the  same 
attitude  was  taken  by  Lassalle  in  his  conflict  with 
Schultze-Delitzsch.3  Production  was  presumed  to 
care  for  itself,  if  only  the  distribution  of  values  were 
arranged.  In  contrast  to  their  views  the  contribution 
of  Professor  Clark,  showing  that  distribution  is  also 
amenable  to  law  and  is  only  one  phase  of  the  process  of 
production,  is  most  interesting  and  important.4 

With  the  writings  of  Marx  the  demands  of  socialism 
are  shifted  to  a  very  rational  basis.  He  analyzed  the 
productive  process  to  see  who  produced  the  values. 
Marx,  as  is  well  known,  decided  that  labor  produced  all 
"surplus- value"  and  should  therefore  be  the  only 
sharer.  This  proposition  laid  the  basis  in  economic 
theory  of  the  laboring  man's  socialism.5  Accepting 
the  ethics  of  product,  it  made  possible  the  basing  of 
socialism  upon  justice  and  merit.  This  marks  the 


1  "  It  is  not  so  with  the  distribution  of  wealth.    That  is  a  matter 
of  human  institution  solely." — "Principles  of  Political  Economy," 
Bk.  II,  Ch.  I. 

2  "Progress  and  Poverty." 

J  Lassalle,  "  Heir  Bastiat-Schultze  von  Delitzsch,  der  Skonomis- 
chen  Julian;  oder,  Capital  und  Arbeit,"  pp.  13  et  seq. 
4  "Distribution  of  Wealth,"  Ch.  I. 
s  Sombart,  "Socialism,"  p.  51. 


INTRODUCTION  15 

theoretical  separation  of  socialism  and  communism. 
Based  upon  the  Marxian  formula,  socialism  demands, 
not  that  all  shall  share  alike,  but  that  all  shall  share 
according  to  sacrifice ;  that  is,  that  the  laborer  shall  get 
the  entire  product  of  his  labor.1  Socialism,  then,  differs 
from  communism  in  that  it  rests  its  claims  upon  the 
merits  of  labor,  falls  back  to  the  ethics  of  product,  and 
demands  only  justice.2  Communism  rests  its  claims 
upon  the  wants  of  its  clientage  and  hence  has  a  philan- 
thropic and  not  an  economic  basis. 

The  connecting  link  between  these  two  systems,  both 
logically  and  chronologically,  is  Collectivism.  In  point 
of  time  it  falls  in  with  the  decline  of  the  radical  com- 
munistic theories  which  were  pretty  much  abandoned 
with  the  downfall  of  the  school  of  Saint- Simon  in  the 
early  forties.  The  new  collectivist  school  was  dominant 
till  the  rise  of  the  later  social  thought  with  Marx, 
Engels,  and  Lassalle.  Collectivism  is  a  very  moderate 
type  of  socialism  hoping  for  a  more  equitable  distribu- 
tion of  the  product  of  industry  through  a  socialization 
of  the  instruments  of  production.  Collectivism,  then, 
stands  for  the  distributive  process,  as  socialism  goes 
out  from  the  productive,  and  communism  from  the 
consumptive  side. 

There  has  long  persisted,  at  least  in  the  popular 

1  Menger,  op.  cit.,  p.  7. 

'Clark,  "Distribution  of  Wealth,"  pp.  8-9. 


1 6       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

mind,  a  tendency  to  confuse  the  terms  "socialism"  and 
"  anarchism."  None  but  laymen  would  make  this  error, 
yet  the  terms  are  often  found  linked  together  as  if  they 
had  the  same  signification.  Though  in  some  of  their 
premises  there  is  a  similarity,  nothing  is  farther  from 
the  truth.  Both  systems  advocate  the  abandonment  of 
certain  social  forms  which,  they  agree,  are  pernicious. 
Both  systems  make  the  welfare  of  the  individual  the 
test  of  the  validity  of  social  forms.  Both  are  ultra- 
individualistic  ;  they  fall  back  to  a  state  of  nature  where 
all  have  equal  rights  to  certain  things. 

Socialism,  however,  deals  primarily  with  the  division 
of  economic  goods  and  starts  out  as  an  industrial 
system;  anarchism  has  in  view  a  political  transforma- 
tion. Socialism  protests  against  that  set  of  move- 
ments whereby  wealth  has  gone  over  into  centralized 
forms  and  against  the  so-called  capitalistic  method  of 
production.  Anarchism  revolts  against  the  concentra- 
tion of  political  power  in  the  forms  of  centralized  and 
absolute  governments.  Democracy  in  industry  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  meets  the  demands  of  one;  democracy  in 
government  partially  meets  the  theory  of  the  other. 

The  practical  tendency,  moreover,  of  the  two  systems 
leads  far  apart.  Under  a  regime  where  socialistic 
theories  dominate  comes  a  vast  increase  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  public  power.  Instead  of  weakening  gov- 
ernment it  has  from  the  first  tended  to  strengthen  it. 


INTRODUCTION  17 

Socialism  in  its  development  has  placed  more  power 
in  the  public  organs;  it  has  widened  the  collective 
control ;  it  has  given  to  government  enlarged  spheres  of 
action  and  limited  the  area  of  private  initiative  and 
control.  Socialism  holds  to  the  importance  of  absolute 
power  of  government  in  an  enlarged  sphere  and  leads  to 
an  exaggeration  of  public  authority;  anarchism  in  an 
equal  degree  emphasizes  the  importance  and  the 
absoluteness  of  the  individual.  A  recent  writer  has 
thus  expressed  it:  "For  the  anarchist  the  betterment 
of  society  depends  primarily  upon  the  betterment  of  the 
individual ;  while  for  the  socialist  the  betterment  of  the 
individual  depends  primarily  upon  the  betterment  of 
society.  The  complete  realization  of  socialism  pre- 
supposes the  perfection  of  human  machinery,  and  the 
complete  realization  of  anarchism  the  perfection  of  hu- 
man nature.  Thus  do  socialism  of  the  radical  type 
and  anarchism  differ."  l 

4.  There  are  two  general  views  of  the  fundamental 
nature  of  society  which  are  pertinent  to  this  discussion, 
whose  origin  is  rather  remote.  One  dates  back  to  the 
philosopher  Plato,  and  may  be  called  the  artificial  view 
of  society.  This  doctrine  is  set  forth  in  his  "  Republic," 
which  is  the  working  out  of  his  social  theory  under  the 
domination  of  the  concept  of  the  Ideal  State.2  The 

1  Sanborn,  "Paris  and  the  Social  Revolution,"  p.  168. 
'Barker,  "The  Political  Thought  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,"  p.  81. 
c 


1 8       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

second  theory  of  society  goes  back  to  Plato's  great 
opponent,  Aristotle,  and  may  be  called  the  natural  view 
of  society. 

The  teaching  of  Plato  on  the  form  and  purpose  of 
society  is  best  set  forth  in  his  masterpiece,  "The  Re- 
public." In  this  work,  which  contemplates  a  perfect 
commonwealth,  Plato  considers  society  as  a  self-con- 
scious thing,  capable  of  directing  and  controlling  its  own 
form  and  process  by  its  own  deliberate  action.  In  other 
words,  he  taught  the  possibility  and  practicability  of  an 
artificial  or  an  ideally  constructed  state  —  a  Utopia  of 
social  bliss.  Many  writers  have  accepted  the  general 
principle  above  set  down;  such  men  as  Aquinas, 
Augustine,  More,  Campanella,  Harrington,  Bacon, 
Hall,  Fe"nelon,  Morelly,  and  Rousseau  —  writers  with 
whom  one  fundamental  proposition  may  be  discovered ; 
namely,  that  society  may  control  its  own  form  and 
process.  In  other  words,  every  theory  of  social  welfare 
here  called  socialistic,  which  has  appeared  from  Plato 
to  Karl  Marx,  has  been  dominated  by  this  view;  has 
been  under  the  guidance  of  the  principle  that  society 
may  be  artificially  constructed;  that  reformers  may 
say,  "Go  to;  let  us  construct  a  society."  1 

1  "Thus  it  is,  then,  that  owing  to  our  many  wants,  and  because 
each  seeks  the  aid  of  others,  we  gather  many  associates  and  helpers 
into  one  dwelling-place  and  give  to  this  joint  dwelling  the  name  of 
city."  —  "  Republic,"  Vaughan  Edition,  Bk.  II,  p.  54.  "  Now,  then,  let 


INTRODUCTION  19 

According  to  Aristotle,  however,  the  social  will  ex- 
pressed through  government  cannot  control  the  social  in- 
stitutions. If  slavery  exists,  it  exists  because  certain  men 
are  naturally  slaves ;  while  others  are  born  to  be  mas- 
ters; social  relationships  are  determined  in  this  natural 
and  hence  inevitable  manner.  In  the  theory  of  Aristotle 
man  is  by  nature  a  master  or  by  nature  a  slave ;  he  is  by 
nature  rich  or  by  nature  poor.  In  the  nature  of  things 
man  is  as  he  is,  and  on  the  nature  of  the  individuals  in 
society  does  the  form  of  society  depend.1 

Plato  placed  great  confidence  in  the  actions  of  the 
social  will.  He  would  trust  the  social  mind  in  its 
conclusions  as  to  the  best  ordering  of  human  society. 
His  theory  is  the  opposite  of  that  of  Aristotle.  It  is  the 
opposite  of  that  philosophy  upon  which  later  political 
economy  came  to  rest.  It  is  denied  by  the  teachings 
of  the  Physiocrats,  to  whom  the  natural  laws  were  all 
important.  It  was  contradicted  by  the  "Laissez- 
fairists"  everywhere.  Plato's  teachings  conflict  with 
the  doctrines  of  classical  economics  where  society  was 
supposed  to  be  controlled  by  the  laws  of  its  nature. 
His  theory  of  society  in  this  regard  is  refuted  by  the 
evolutionary  theories  of  social  science ;  it  is  abandoned 

us  construct  our  imaginary  city  from  the  beginning.  It  will  owe  its 
construction,  it  appears,  to  our  natural  wants."  —  Ibid.,  p.  54.  So  in 
various  places  Plato  emphasizes  the  possibility  of  establishing  an 
artificial  city.  Cf.  Ibid.  p.  127. 

1  "Politics,"  Jowett's  translation,  Vol.  I,  p.  2. 


2O       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

by  the  scientific  school  of  socialism  led  by  Karl  Marx, 
who  goes  over  to  the  evolutionary  idea  of  social  progress. 

The  natural  conclusions  of  the  theory  of  Aristotle  are 
classical  economics,  laissez-faire  doctrines,  individual- 
ism in  industry,  free  competition,  Manchester  school. 
The  equally  logical  outgrowths  of  Plato's  idea  of  social 
control  are  seen  in  the  mediaeval  control  of  affairs  of 
church  and  state,  monastic  life,  celibacy,  clerical  theories 
of  political  economy,  Utopian  socialism,  protective 
systems,  mercantilism,  and  the  many  schemes  of  state 
socialism  and  public  control  which  are  offered  as 
nostrums  for  all  sorts  of  social  ills.  The  period  of 
Adam  Smith  may  be  said  to  mark  the  downfall  of  the 
extreme  theory  of  social  control  which  in  one  way  or 
another  had  dominated  thought  since  Plato ;  in  politics 
it  broke  down  earlier;  in  the  realm  of  socialism  it 
continued  till  Karl  Marx,  who  abandoned  this  con- 
structive notion  and  began  the  study  of  the  operation  of 
those  social  laws  which  control  the  process  of  social 
evolution. 

Socialism,  then,  as  here  discussed,  has  this  peculiar 
view  of  human  society;  it  has  a  life  philosophy,  indi- 
vidual and  social;  it  advocates  the  theory  of  social 
control  as  against  the  domination  of  individual  ambition, 
selfishness,  and  rapacity;  it  opposes  the  laissez-faire 
theory  and  practice,  and  declares  war  on  free  competi- 
tion. 


INTRODUCTION  21 

5.  In  the  search  for  unity  in  the  thought  of  those 
writers  who  may  be  called  socialistic,  some  difficulty  is 
met  with.  It  may  be  said  that  among  the  different 
shades  of  socialistic  belief  the  lines  of  unity  are  more 
marked  on  the  destructive  side.  Most  socialists,  of 
whatever  color,  naturally  agree  in  attacking  with  about 
equal  severity  the  existing  order.  Against  certain 
features  of  modern  industrial  society  —  the  wage 
system,  free  competition,  the  existence  of  the  leisure 
class,  and  certain  economic  categories  such  as  rent  and 
profits  —  all  socialism  presents  a  united  front.  Along 
this  line  is  to  be  sought  the  historical  continuity  of 
socialistic  teaching.  Whether  or  not  the  socialists  have 
crystallized  or  can  crystallize  their  thought  into  any 
positive  system,  they  have  at  least  been  united  in  waging 
war  on  the  existing  social  system.  One  thing  they  all 
proclaim,  that,  come  what  may,  the  present  cannot 
endure.1 

It  may  seem  like  stating  a  truism  to  say  that,  as 
socialism  is  a  doctrine  of  discontent,  it  has  been  a 
propaganda  of  the  less  advantaged  class  of  society.  It 
is  true  that  in  its  modern  phases  socialism  is  a  laboring . 
man's  movement,  and  its  philosophy,  the  basis  of  which 
was  laid  in  the  theory  of  "  surplus- value  "  by  Karl  Marx, 

1  "But  seeing  the  masses  are  more  easily  united  on  negations,  an 
immense  revolutionary  power  must  be  ascribed  to  both."  Menger, 
op.  cit.,  p.  1 60. 


22       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

is  a  laboring  man's  philosophy.  There  is,  however, 
nothing  in  the  system  of  socialism  to  make  it  necessarily 
a  lower-class  movement.1  The  general  attitude  of 
socialism  toward  the  problem  of  distribution  is  that  the 
natural  laws  fixing  the  shares  of  the  product  of  the 
industrial  process,  which  are  trusted  implicitly  by 
the  laissez-faire  school,  are  entirely  untrustworthy. 
There  must,  therefore,  be  some  external  pressure 
brought  to  bear  to  more  equitably  distribute  the  social 
income.  The  extent  or  completeness  of  this  social 
interference  in  the  realm  of  natural  economic  law  marks 
the  varying  degrees  of  socialism.  There  is,  however, 
nothing  in  this  general  theory  which  attaches  it  nec- 
essarily to  the  lower  or  laboring  classes. 

Socialists  have  commonly  recognized,  since  Thomas 
More,  that  the  causes  of  social  and  political  evils  lie  in 
the  maladjustments  of  economic  relationships.  They 
all  hold  quite  consistently  that,  with  the  existing 
capitalistic  organization  of  society,  wrong,  injustice, 
inequality,  and  misery  are  a  necessity  and  a  natural  and 
unavoidable  outgrowth  of  conditions.  With  this  sys- 
tem of  industrial  organization,  social  betterment  is  a 
vain  hope.  Palliatives  there  may  be,  but  not  a  cure. 
This  leads  all  socialists  to  the  radical  conclusion  that 
reformation  of  the  vicious  system  is  vain  and  that  hope 
lies  only  in  its  destruction.  This  was  especially  true 
1  Sombart,  "Socialism,"  pp.  154-156. 


INTRODUCTION  23 

of  the  earlier  social  theorists.  To  them  the  existing 
social  organization  was  pernicious  and  unsatisfactory, 
producing  normally  social  evil  and  unrest.  Hence  they 
propose  to  totally  alter  the  social  structure  and  so  re- 
organize society  that  justice  and  universal  social  welfare 
would  be  its  normal  fruitage.  The  socialists  have,  then, 
generally  believed  that  the  present  social  system  has 
been  tried  and  been  found  wanting.1  Socialism  has 
this  common  feature  marking  its  varied  history.  It 
has  been  a  protest  against  the  existing  order.  In  the 
earlier  period  discussed  in  this  study,  it  was  against  that 
type  of  industrial  life  that  was  hastening  the  disintegra- 
tion of  society,  feudally  organized,  and  taking  its  place. 
As  Professor  Foxwell  says:  "We  may  regard  social- 
ism as  a  protest  against  the  extravagances  of  the  in- 
dividualistic movement  of  the  Renaissance  and  the 
Reformation;  against  the  disintegration  of  the  settled 
order  and  inner  harmony  of  mediaeval  life."  2 

Socialism  has  from  the  start  attacked  industrial  society 
as  thus  organized  on  a  basis  of  individualism.  The 
struggle,  therefore,  opens  when  the  forces  of  individual- 
ism begin  to  dominate.  As  the  spirit  of  individualism, 
coming  into  existence  with  the  Reformation,  augmented 
and  gained  clearer  and  stronger  expression,  so  grew  the 

1  Cf.  Kleinwachter,  "Die  Staatsromane,"  p.  20.    Mackay,  "A  His- 
tory of  English  Poor  Laws,"  N.  Y.,  1900,  p.  6. 

2  Introduction  to  translation  of  Menger's   "  Right  to  the  Whole 
Produce  of  Labor,"  p.  xxv. 


24       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

opposing  spirit  of  socialism.  From  the  Reformation 
down  to  the  period  of  Adam  Smith  it  is  vague  and 
ill-defined;  so  is  the  opposing  principle  of  socialism. 
With  the  coming-in  of  the  individualistic  regime,  es- 
pecially in  the  time  of  the  classical  economists  in 
England  and  of  the  physiocrats  in  France,  individual- 
ism becomes  strong  and  aggressive,  and  socialism  be- 
comes a  clearer  system  and  its  advocates  active  propa- 
gandists. After  Adam  Smith  the  two  principles  are 
more  consciously  appreciated,  and  the  classes  on  either 
side  are  engaged  in  the  social  struggle. 

Another  common  ground  upon  which  socialists, 
earlier  and  later,  can  meet  is  found  in  their  attitude 
toward  private  property.  Private  property,  being  the 
foundation-stone  of  modern  society  and  a  fundamental 
hypothesis  in  existing  economic  theory,  is  naturally  a 
subject  of  constant  discussion  and  an  object  of  the 
cordial  dislike  of  all  writers  bearing  the  title  of  social- 
ist. The  early  schemes  are  largely  occupied  in  discuss- 
ing the  abandonment  of  private  ownership  and  a  pos- 
sible substitute  for  a  social  foundation.  It  appears 
evident  from  a  study  of  the  programmes  of  socialistic 
congresses  and  documents  from  the  "Communist 
Manifesto"  of  Karl  Marx  to  the  programme  of  Erfurt 
or  Hanover,  modern  socialism  has  not  changed  its 
attitude.1 

1  See  Kautsky,  op.  cit.,  pp.  148  el.  seq. 


INTRODUCTION  2$ 

All  earlier  schemes  for  social  regeneration  assume  a 
"man  of  nature."  They  propose  to  build  society  upon 
primitive  principles.  All  radical  social  writers  insist 
upon  a  greater  simplicity  in  social  life.  One  of  the 
tenets  widely  accepted  is  that  progress  may  consist  in 
lessening  social  wants  as  well  as  in  increasing  produc- 
tive power.  This  to  a  certain  extent  meets  the  charges 
often  urged  against  socialism,  that  it  threatens  in- 
dustrial efficiency  and  hence  the  amount  of  the  product. 
The  state  of  nature  here  conceived  of  is  a  condition  of 
primitive  perfection  to  be  attained  by  a  return  to  earlier 
conditions  rather  than  through  progress  to  reach  a 
future  state  of  social  bliss.  Early  socialism  had  about 
the  same  idea  of  a  primitive  state  of  nature  as  had 
Pufendorf :  "By  the  natural  state  of  man  in  our  present 
inquiry  we  do  not  mean  the  condition  which  is  ulti- 
mately designed  for  him  by  nature  as  the  most  agree- 
able; but  such  a  state  as  we  can  conceive  man  placed 
in  by  his  bare  nativity  abstracting  him  from  all  the  rules 
and  constitutions  whether  of  human  invention  or  of  the 
suggestion  and  revelation  of  heaven;  for  the  addition 
of  those  assistances  seems  to  put  another  face  on  things 
and  to  frame  life  anew  upon  an  exacter  model."  1 
This  sums  up  the  ideas  of  a  state  of  nature  as  held  by 
the  early  social  theorists.  This  theory  is  adhered  to, 
directly  or  tacitly,  from  Thomas  More  to  Rousseau. 

1  "Law  of  Nature  and  of  Nations,"  Bk.  2,  Ch.  II. 


26       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

Another  feature  very  common  to  all  the  earlier  and 
many  later  socialist  doctrines  is  the  emphasis  placed 
upon  the  influence  of  environment  upon  individual  and 
social  life.  This  is  of  two  kinds:  social  environment, 
viewed  as  the  direct  cause  of  social  evil;  and  material 
environment,  considered  as  a  most  potent  factor  in  the 
formation  of  social  and  individual  character.  So- 
cialism especially  emphasizes  the  power  of  the  social 
environment ;  and  as  by  hypothesis  the  social  structure 
is  artificial  and  changeable  at  will,  the  radical  social- 
ists logically  insist  that  the  social  conditions  be  totally 
altered.  Evil  is  attributed  to  society  and  its  vicious 
institutions;  therefore  society  must  be  reconstructed. 

Touching  the  despotic  tendency  of  radical  socialistic 
and  communistic  schemes,  an  appreciative  writer  says : 
"The  system,  the  most  authentic  and  absolute,  is  the 
system  based  upon  communism;  either  before  or  after 
the  invention  of  the  word  'socialism,'  especially  those 
schemes  patterned  after  Campanella,  Thomas  More,  and 
the  Moravian  brethren.  Those  schemes  that  abandon 
private  property  are  absolute  in  their  nature." 

Most  of  the  early  social  schemes  placed  an  absolute 
"prince"  at  the  centre  of  their  system.  Illustrations 
may  be  seen  in  Erasmus'  "Christian  Prince,"  the 
"Prince"  of  the  great  Machiavelli,  the  supreme  power 
"  Hoh  "  in  the  "  City  of  the  Sun,"  Hobbes'  "  Leviathan, " 


INTRODUCTION  2? 

and  Von  Haller's  "Usong," — in  all  the  "prince"  is 
idealized  and  given  a  place  of  commanding  prominence. 
In  government  a  monarchic  plan  is  outlined;  society 
is  organized  on  the  principle  of  a  personal  hierarchy. 

A  study  of  the  early  social  schemes  reveals  the  truth 
that  they  saw  that  a  society  without  gradations  was 
impossible  and  that  where  property  ceased  to  be  the 
principle  of  classification,  it  must  rest  upon  a  basis  of 
personal  distinction ;  and  the  schemes  are  marked  by  the 
fact  of  a  personal  hierarchy  of  the  most  absolute  kind. 
All  history  bears  evidence  that  the  evolution  of  liberty 
has  been  closely  associated  with  the  evolution  of  pri- 
vate property.  Personal  relationships,  from  low  forms 
of  slavery  up,  have  been  relationships  of  servitude  and 
tyranny;  property  relationships  have  brought  about 
conditions  of  independence.  Only  two  general  types 
of  social  relationship  can  exist ;  one  has  a  material,  the 
other  a  personal,  foundation.  Systems  rejecting  private 
property  have  fallen  back  on  the  principle  of  personal 
allegiance.  To  this  alternative  all  Utopian  schemes  of 
social  regeneration  have  been  driven,  and  in  the  nature 
of  the  case  they  have  been  despotic.  This  despotic 
form  of  control  and  of  social  organization  is  common  to 
all  early  socialism  where  property  is  abandoned  as  the 
basis  of  social  organization. 

Socialistic  writers  have  not  been  so  blind  as  to  rob 
society  of  the  common  motive  to  industry  and  make  no 


28       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

other  provisions.  Under  most  schemes  of  socialism 
attention  is  paid  to  the  need  of  motives  to  industrial 
activity.  Socialists  insist  that  motives  arising  from 
primary  wants  should  and  will  displace  those  arising 
from  secondary  ones.  Thus  they  oppose  money  and 
pecuniary  gains  as  being  unnecessary  in  the  industrial 
process.  The  pecuniary  motive  would,  then,  be 
abandoned  by  socialists  and  no  harm  be  expected. 
Socialists  unite  in  opposing  luxury  and  believe  that 
industrial  society  can  more  nearly  supply  the  wants  of 
all  its  members  by  living  in  a  simple  rather  than  in  a 
complex,  luxurious  manner.  The  demand  for  primary 
utilities  would,  they  conceive,  supply  enough  impetus. 
With  the  desire  for  distinction  gone,  many  of  the  ex- 
travagant expenses  necessary  under  the  present  system 
would  vanish.  All  the  desire  and  the  cost  of  "con- 
spicuous waste"  would  be  avoided.  All  sharing 
substantially  alike,  the  motive  to  effort  arising  from  the 
class-struggle  and  competition  would  be  avoided  by 
society;  but  so  would  the  corresponding  waste.  But 
if  the  motives  to  labor  be  somewhat  lessened,  the  sacri- 
fice of  industrial  effort  will  be  to  the  same  degree 
reduced;  and  labor  becoming  really  a  pleasure,  the 
motive  to  toil  will  come  from  the  activities  themselves. 
As  will  be  pointed  out,  this  has  been  long  emphasized, 
and  Fourier  was  not  the  first  one  to  dream  of  the 
possibilities  of  a  laborer's  paradise. 


INTRODUCTION  29 

Consistent  with  the  attitude  taken,  the  early  so- 
cialist was  of  a  decidedly  constructive  turn  of  mind. 
The  destructive  effects  of  a  communist  propaganda 
require  a  theory  of  social  reconstruction.  A  most 
cursory  view  of  the  growth  of  private  property  in  its 
relation  to  social  evolution  will  suggest  what  a  large 
task  rests  upon  the  social  theorist  who  would  destroy 
private  property  and  its  kindred  forms,  and  yet  preserve 
orderly  society.  It  is,  however,  undoubtedly  true  that 
society  in  the  age  of  Thomas  More  and  the  whole  early 
school  of  radical  communists  and  socialists  was  [not  so 
dependent  upon  the  fact  of  private  property  as  is  the 
modern  age.  That  less  apprehension  was  entertained 
at  casting  it  aside  was  very  natural. 

A  most  pleasing  and  equally  groundless  optimism 
marks  most  of  the  early  socialist  writings.  This 
optimism  rests  upon  a  peculiar  philosophy  of  life  and 
on  a  boundless  confidence  in  the  possibilities  of  human 
nature.  It  also  holds  to  the  doctrine  of  the  benevo- 
lence of  nature  and  of  natural  law.  Socialism  seeks 
to  relocate  the  causes  of  misery,  not  in  nature,  but  in 
society  and  in  its  perverted  institutions.  In  this  fact 
lies  its  hopefulness.  Not  in  natural  and  inevitable 
economic  laws,  as  the  "iron  law  of  wages"  or  "Malthu- 
sian  laws  of  population,"  or  "dismal  laws  of  supply 
and  demand"  —  not  in  these  lie  the  causes  of  evil  and 
of  misery,  but  in  social  environment  and  in  institutions 


30       SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

which  can  be  and  should  be  changed,  —  here  lies  the 
root  of  social  woe. 

It  was  to  the  reconstruction  of  society,  as  thus  con- 
ceived, that  early  socialism  directed  its  attention. 
Along  with  this  very  hopeful  view  of  the  possibility  of 
society  if  once  properly  organized  goes  an  equally 
gloomy  view  of  the  outlook  for  existing  society.  Pes- 
simism as  to  conditions,  optimism  as  to  possibilities, 
sums  up  in  a  phrase  its  attitude  toward  society.  The 
socialist  reverses  the  old  adage  to  "Whatever  is,  is 
wrong,"  and  records  a  violent  protest  against  existing 
institutions. 

Another  feature  marking  all  early  social  schemes  is  a 
devotion  to  a  peculiar  form  of  political  and  social  organi- 
zation —  the  city-state,  with  which  was  coupled  the 
kindred  notion  of  insularity.  Most  early  social  re- 
formers hoped  for  social  regeneration  and  betterment 
through  the  organization  of  closely  aggregated  social 
groups,  self-sufficient  and  isolated.  All  the  artificial 
schemes  were  patterned  after  the  Greek  model,  the  one 
Plato  had  in  mind  in  his  "Republic,"  the  Greek  city- 
state.1  Conditions  favored  this  in  England  in  the  age 
of  More  and  in  Italy  in  that  of  Campanella.  In 
England  cities  were  less  developed,  but  Italy  was  the 
home  of  the  city-state.  Campanella  naturally  con- 
structed his  "City  of  the  Sun"  along  the  lines  of  mu- 

1  Barker,  op.  cit.,  p.  2. 


INTRODUCTION  31 

nicipal  organization.  Around  him  were  the  declining 
"city  republics";  while  more  remote,  yet  forceful,  was 
the  memory  of  the  seven-hilled  city  on  the  Tiber.  To 
the  Italian,  indeed,  the  problem  of  civilization  had 
always  been  a  municipal  problem.  Campanella  shared 
in  this  belief. 

Socialism  has  adhered  to  the  idea  of  a  social  solidarity. 
This  is  hoped  for  through  the  establishment  of  equality, 
the  rejection  of  the  principle  of  individualism,  the 
substitution  of  social-interest  for  self-interest,  and  the 
modification  of  the  class-struggle.  Socialism  hopes  to 
do  away  with  industrial  anarchy,  allay  the  class-struggle, 
and  to  banish  the  savagery  of  competition.  It  has 
busied  itself  chiefly  with  the  problem  of  distribution 
and  has  concerned  itself  less  with  production.  Goods 
once  produced  are  to  be  equitably  distributed.  It  is 
the  apparent  unequal  distribution  that  perplexes  the 
socialist.  "A  better  distribution  of  products  would 
alone  give  all  enough  to  eat.  .  .  .  The  fault  then  if 
we  have  not  enough  to  eat  lies  in  the  defective  organi- 
zation and  is  not  due  to  lack  of  production."  1  These 
words  express  a  common  feature  of  socialistic  doctrine. 

Another  feature  very  much  emphasized  as  a  peculiar 
contribution  of  socialism  is  the  so-called  economic  or 
materialistic  interpretation  of  history.  Its  main  propo- 
sition is  that  history  advances  under  the  influence  of  the 

1  Jean  Grave,  "L' Anarchic,  son  But,  ses  Moyens." 


32       SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

strife  of  classes,  whose  struggle  concerns  the  distribu- 
tion of  material  wealth.  According  to  Schmoller,  the 
socialists  are  not  responsible  for  the  introduction  of  this 
type  of  historical  interpretation;  though  they  soon 
came  to  appeal  to  it  in  support  of  their  socialistic 
propaganda.1  After  the  great  historians,  such  as 
Niebuhr,  Thierry,  and  Guizot,  had  laid  emphasis  upon 
the  class-struggle  and  its  relation  to  historical  develop- 
ment, the  socialists  took  up  the  idea  and  have  very  much 
expanded  it.  From  this  they  naturally  arrived  at  a 
particular  form  of  economic  interpretation.2 

The  attempt  will  be  made  in  a  subsequent  chapter  to 
show  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  later  develop- 
ment of  society  along  class-lines,  based  upon  an  eco- 
nomic difference,  the  early  radical  social  teachings  are 
largely  free  from  the  influence  of  this  social  classification, 
and  there  is  no  clear  evidence  of  class-antagonism.  It 
is  here  maintained  that  at  the  break-up  of  the  mediaeval 
system,  English  social  history  did  not  develop  along  any 

1  Schmoller,  "  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften,"  1903,  p.  1109. 

2  A  very  extensive  literature  has  grown  up  on  this  subject.     For  a 
good  r&ume'  see  article  by  Gustav  Schmoller,  "Akademie  der  Wis- 
senschaften," 1903;    also   Vol.  II  of  his   "Volkswirthschaftslehre," 
Bk.  4,  Ch.  2.     Cf.  Karl  Kautsky,  "Die  Klassengegensatze  von,  1889," 
Pamphlet  No.  4,  Neue  Zeit,  1889;  Hans  Muller,   "Der  Klassen- 
kampf  in  der  deutschen  Socialdemokratie,"  1892 ;  A.  Schaffle,  "  Kapi- 
talismus   und   Socialismus,"   Siebente   Abtheilung,   1878;    Sombart, 
"Socialism,"  Chs.  3  and  4;  Karl  Marx,  "Das  Kapital,"  Einleitung; 
Bernstein,  "  Voraussetzungen  des  Socialismus,"  Ch.  I. 


INTRODUCTION  33 

narrow  lines  of  class-conflict ;  but  that  much  of  both  the 
theory  and  practice  was  concerned  with  the  general 
social  welfare  viewed  in  its  entirety.  The  same  thing 
might  be  said  of  France  in  the  period  of  Revolution 
when  the  legislation  passed  controlled  all  social  classes.1 
While  there  were,  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  struggle, 
no  clear  class-lines,  toward  the  close  the  class-lines 
came  to  be  distinguished  and  the  struggle  for  the  rights 
of  man  came  to  mean  a  struggle  for  the  rights  of  the 
sans  culottes.2  A  discussion  of  the  class-struggle  would, 
of  course,  involve  a  consideration  of  those  much  mooted 
points  concerning  the  purpose  and  place  of  the  guilds. 
The  overemphasis  of  the  idea  of  a  class-conflict  would 
doubtless  lead  to  a  serious  misconception  of  these  most 
important  bodies.3  The  view  held  here  is  that  the 
guilds  and  the  progress  of  early  England  advanced  with 
little  reference  to  a  class-conflict.  It  is  maintained  that 
More's  "Utopia,"  like  Plato's  "Republic,"  was  a  work 
on  human  welfare  in  its  more  general  aspects.  More, 
in  his  study  of  sixteenth-century  society,  made  many 

1  Kautsky,    "  Socialistische   Monatsheft,"    1901-1902.      Sombart, 
"Socialism,"  pp.  40-41.   Cf.  Lichtenberger,  "Socialisme  et  la  ReVo- 
lution  francaise,"  Introduction. 

2  See  speech  of  Boissel  quoted  later. 

3  For  general  discussion  see :    Webb,  "  History  of  Trades-union- 
ism";  Brentano,  "Origin  of  Trades-unions";   Howell,  "History  of 
Trades-unions";      Cunningham,     "Industrial     History";      Unwin, 
"Industrial  Organization  of  the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Cen- 
turies." 


34 

valuable  suggestions  to  later  socialism;  he  did  not, 
however,  conceive  of  society  from  the  view  point  of  a 
class-struggle.  What  he  did  see  was  a  gradual  evolu- 
tion of  class-consciousness. 

6.  A  large  part  of  the  discussion  of  socialism  up  to  the 
work  of  Ferdinand  Lassalle  may  be  called  academic.1 
All  early  socialistic  thought  was  advanced  by  philosophic 
minds,  and  its  influence  was  confined  to  narrow  and 
exclusive  circles.  Until  the  famous  appeal  by  Karl 
Marx  to  the  laboring  men,  the  socialistic  principles  and 
propaganda  have  been  largely  divorced  from  the  gen- 
eral mass  of  the  people.  The  self-help  idea  of  the  lower 
classes  is  a  very  modern  idea.2  The  participation  of  the 
labor  class  in  the  movements  of  socialism  is  still  more 
modem.  Robert  Owen  appealed  to  the  aristocratic 
element.  His  efforts  were  for  the  less  advantaged  class ; 
it  was  not  to  them  he  appealed  nor  through  them  that  he 
purposed  reform.3  The  French  socialists  of  the  first 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century  organized  schools,  such  as 
that  of  Saint-Simon;  they  did  not  organize  the  lower 
classes.  Louis  Blanc  came  nearer  to  it,  though  his  was 
not  a  proletariat  movement. 

It  may  be  asked  why  this  form  of  idealistic  and 
unpractical  social  theory  so  completely  dominated  the 

1  From  1859-1864  Lassalle  was  actively  engaged  in  agitation. 
1  Active  labor  movements  began  in  England  about  1825. 
1  "  New  View  of  Society."     1816. 


INTRODUCTION  35 

earlier  period  of  discussion.  In  the  first  place  these 
theories  were  advanced  when  exact  method  was  not 
developed  and  when  literary  form  was  much  em- 
phasized. Again,  the  literary  romance  is  a  convincing 
and  insidious  manner  of  presentation.  The  romance 
was,  moreover,  a  form  that  gave  greater  immunity  to  the 
writers.  Direct  attack  on  existing  institutions  was  not 
tolerated.  Satires  and  romances  enjoyed  almost  com- 
plete immunity  throughout  the  period  of  despotism, 
both  in  England  and  in  France. 

Another,  fact  to  be  noted  is  that  social  theorizing  of 
this  form  marks  the  period  of  the  romance  of  travel. 
These  writings  appeared  when  for  the  first  time  remote 
lands  were  being  visited  and  explored.  Primitive 
peoples  were  discovered  and  studied,  all  of  which 
started  new  lines  of  social  thought,  fired  the  imagination, 
and  gave  food  for  the  romancist.  This  was  perhaps 
the  first  time  since  theorizing  began  that  civilization  had 
been  thrown  and  kept  in  contact  with  barbarian  life  and 
culture.  The  Greeks  knew  the  "Barbarian"  or  non- 
Greek;  Latin  writers  portray  peoples  of  strange  man- 
ner and  life ;  but  they  were  not  barbarians. 

Literature  of  various  kinds  was  stimulated  by  this  new 
experience.  For  centuries  it  had  depended  entirely 
upon  earlier  and  hence  ancient  culture  for  its  models  and 
ideals;  from  the  classical  age  had  come  its  impetus, 
and  the  Renaissance  had  brought  its  rich  treasures  from 


36       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

ancient  civilization.  In  this  age  not  a  classical  but  a 
new,  primitive,  uncultured  world  appealed  to  the 
imagination  and  awakened  the  fancy.  This  new 
culture  gave  suggestions  on  methods  of  social  organi- 
zation and  of  political  structure. 

Only  a  few  illustrations  can  be  given  here  from  the 
field  of  literature.  The  romance1  of  Thomas  More 
shows  this  new  force  in  an  interesting  manner.  The 
scene  of  his  social  study  is  the  new  western  world.  His 
chief  actor  is  a  seaman  who  had  journeyed  with 
America's  first  geographer.  The  people  he  takes  as  his 
model  for  social  regeneration  are  simple  barbarians. 
More  idealizes  these  people,  their  simple  virtues  and 
effective  social  organization,  and  contrasts  it  with  the 
England  of  his  day.  The  use  Swift  makes  of  about  the 
same  set  of  facts  is  instructive.  He  falls  under  the 
same  influence,  but  writes  one  of  the  most  hateful  satires 
that  at  once  amuses  and  insults  the  reader.  Mrs. 
Aphra  Behn  took  the  same  set  of  conditions  and  ideal- 
ized primitive  man,  giving  literature  that  much  used 
concept  of  the  "good  savage"  (le  bon  sauvage). 
Rousseau  borrowed  this  idea  and  adapted  it  to  his 
purpose.  In  the  writings  of  Hobbes  and  Locke  the 
same  evidence  appears,  and  their  illustrations  are 
drawn  from  the  newly  explored  area  of  savage  life. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  study  of  primitive 

1  Utopia,  1516. 


INTRODUCTION  37 

man  and  the  attempt  to  analyze  him  were  accompanied 
by  an  effort  to  study  more  extensively  the  animal 
world.  One  led  to  a  reexamination  of  man  himself  and 
his  spiritual  possibilities,  and  had  its  results  in  an  at- 
tempt to  so  readjust  social  institutions  as  to  make  them 
correspond  with  the  new  conception  of  what  man  was 
in  his  primitive  state.  The  study  of  politics  shows  the 
effects  of  this  new  thought,  and  revolutions  depended  on 
it.  Social  schemes  of  reconstruction  and  betterment 
reflect  the  same  force.  The  newly  aroused  study  of 
animal  life  led  to  a  study  of  the  origin  of  species,  the 
place  of  man  in  the  realm  of  life,  and  the  consideration 
of  the  evolution  of  higher  forms  of  life.  The  former 
type  of  study  was  begun  by  Thomas  More;  the  latter 
by  Lopez  and  Pigafetta  and  continued  by  the  modern 
students  of  anthropology  and  sociology.1 

It  may  be  said,  then,  that  this  type  of  social  thought 
and  study  was  largely  academic  and  intellectual.  It 
did  not  affect  the  feelings  nor  appeal  to  the  emotions.  It 
did,  however,  affect  men's  minds.  These  writings  were 
not  fruitful  in  leading  men  to  action ;  they  were  rather 
thought-breeders.  The  men  they  reached  were  not 
stirred  to  action  by  them;  students  were,  however,  to 

1  See  John  Pinkerton,  "  General  Collection  of  the  Best  and  Most 
Interesting  Voyages  and  Travels  in  all  Parts  of  the  World."  1811. 
Cf.  "Travels  of  Rabbi  Benjamin,"  1160-1173;  "Remarkable 
Travels  of  William  de  Rubinquis,  a  Monk,"  1253. 


38       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

take  them  up  and  develop  them.1  The  value  of  these 
Utopian  and  romantic  writings  should  not  be  under- 
estimated. They  awakened  the  fire  of  agitation,  and  the 
thought  was  widened  and  intensified  and  made  effective 
hi  modern  times.  These  writings  have  been  arsenals 
from  which  modern  social  critics  have  taken  weapons. 
Against  the  fantasy  of  poetry  there  is  no  effective  eco- 
nomical argument.2  These  romances  were  the  origin 
of  new  social  ideals,  without  which  a  social  revolution 
is  impossible.  Back  of  all  attempted  reforms  have  been 
held  up  those  rosy,  unattainable  prospects.3 

This  type  of  literature,  then,  cannot  be  ignored.  It 
forms  too  large  a  part  of  the  social  and  political  writings 
of  the  time  and  contains  many  rational,  progressive 
ideas  of  reform.  It  should  not  be  rejected  simply 
because  it  does  not  present  a  logical  dogmatic  scheme. 
The  social  Utopias  and  romances  here  studied  teach 
social  theory  and  induce  reform  by  means  of  the  con- 
crete example.  They  set  forth  social  ideas  and  clothe 
them  with  flesh  and  blood,  as  it  were. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  socialism  has  passed 
through  three  stages :  the  imaginative  or  romantic,  the 
critical,  and  the  scientific.  What  is  dealt  with  here  is 


1  Dowden,  "The  French  Revolution  and  English  Literature,"  p.  6. 
Buckle,  "History  of  Civilization,"  Vol.  I,  Ch.  i. 

1  Earth,  "  Der  Sozialistische  Zukunftstaat,"  pp.  7-8. 
'Von  Mohl,  "Tiibinger  Zeitschrift,"  1845,  pp.  24  et  seq. 


INTRODUCTION  39 

largely  the  first  or  imaginative  period.  "Since  the 
human  spirit  has  been  awakened  to  reflection,  it  has 
ever  been  inclined  amidst  all  the  puzzles  and  contradic- 
tions and  needs  of  human  life  to  create  a  harmonious 
whole  in  which  all  these  difficulties  are  forever  solved."  * 
7.  In  the  study  of  the  history  of  ideas,  chronology  is 
not  of  first  importance ;  however,  so  closely  does  social 
theory  tend  to  correspond  to  actual  social  development 
that  some  attention  must  be  given  it.  It  is  here  main- 
tained that  one  general  type  of  thought  is  discernible 
from  Plato  to  Karl  Marx.  There  are  certain  underlying 
principles  in  which  this  unity  is  said  to  subsist.  Within 
this  larger  area  certain  smaller  divisions  fall.  The 
period  of  the  classical  writers  rinding  its  centre  in  Plato 
forms  one  conspicuous  era.  The  second  era,  marked  by 
the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  has  been  very  much 
discussed  as  marking  the  opening  of  reasoned  commun- 
ism. A  more  distinct  and  fruitful  period  is  included 
between  the  Reformation  and  the  Revolution ;  this  saw 
the  formation  of  that  form  of  industrial  society  against 
which  modern  socialism  protests  and  has  been  chosen 
as  the  subject  of  this  study.  A  developed  form  of 
socialistic  thought,  much  after  the  earlier  models, 
appears  from  the  Revolution  to  Karl  Marx.  It  has 
much  color  given  it  by  the  events  and  changes  of  the  new 
machine  age. 

1  Pohlmann,  "  Geschichte  des  antiken  Kommunismus  und  Sozial- 
ismus,"  Vol.  II,  p.  3. 


40       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

The  period  chosen  for  this  study  covers  about  two 
centuries,  and  is  treated  under  three  general  divisions 
of  time.  The  first  is  the  Reformation  period,  the  centre 
of  which  is  the  work  of  Sir  Thomas  More.  The  second 
division  goes  out  from  Thomas  Campanella  in  Italy 
and  includes  the  agitation  in  England.  The  period 
preceding  the  French  Revolution  is  treated  last  and  has 
Morelly  as  its  central  figure. 

The  classification  here  adopted  puts  that  very  able 
group  of  writers  that  appeared  after  the  French  Revo- 
lution among  the  Utopian  socialists.  These  years  were 
years  of  the  most  bitter  disappointment.  Countless 
things  in  the  industrial  world  seemed  to  indicate  that 
the  Revolution  had  been  barren  of  results.  Reformers 
turned  from  the  attempts  at  political  betterment  to  a 
struggle  to  improve  social  life.  This  age  is  also  marked 
by  a  return  from  an  aggressive  socialist  propagandism 
to  the  literary  type  of  social  theorizing;  it  meant  a 
return  to  the  cell  of  the  Utopian  and  the  dreamer.  The 
first  quarter  of  a  century  showed  that  tendency  most 
clearly  and  all  kinds  of  literature  bear  the  stamp  of 
social  hopelessness.  The  bright  optimism  of  the  closing 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century  gave  way  to  the  most 
gloomy  scepticism. 

With  the  French  Revolution  the  climax  of  the  most 
radical  aspect  of  socialism  was  reached.  There  are 
many  advocates  of  extreme  communism  after  this  time, 


INTRODUCTION  41 

and  the  term  "  communism  "  covers  this  type  of  thought 
till  1848.  Marx  and  Engels  use  it  in  their  famous 
"Manifesto"  of  1848.  The  term  "socialism"  was 
introduced  in  1839.  The  grosser  form  of  communism 
is  modified  at  about  this  time.  It  takes  the  form  of 
collectivism  hi  the  hands  of  Vidal  and  Pecqueur  or  goes 
over  more  to  a  political  mould  in  the  anarchism  of 
Proudhon.  In  England  literary  and  Christian  social- 
ism develop,  and  active  agitation  begins  over  land-nation- 
alization. Scientific  socialism  came  from  the  hands  of 
Marx  and  Rodbertus,  and  radical  social  transformation 
and  reconstruction  were  abandoned  for  efforts  at  amel- 
ioration of  the  Schultze-Delitzsch  type.1 

This  period  is  marked  by  an  awakening  of  class- 
consciousness  and  the  recognition  of  class-interests  and 
a  consequent  class-conflict.  Social  reformers  show 
this ;  the  legislation  of  the  time  evidences  it.  Laws  are 
carried  through  because  of  new  class-alignments;  a 
"bourgeois  king"  is  put  on  the  throne  of  France  in  1830, 
and  a  proletariat  republic  is  established  in  1848. 
Political  economists,  such  as  Ricardo,  point  out  clearly 
the  classes  that  share  and  struggle  for  that  share,  in  the 
distribution  of  wealth.  This  period  was  marked  by  the 
birth  of  the  proletariat  class  and  the  opening  of  a  con- 
flict of  the  lower  class  on  its  own  behalf.  It  saw  the 

1  Cf .  Laveleye,  "Social  Problems,"  p.  199;  also  Ruppert,  "Das 
sociale  System  Bazards,"  p.  9. 


42        SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

disappearance  of  barriers  to  lower-class  movements, 
permitting  the  organization  of  the  laboring  classes 
everywhere. 

Following  this  period  here  called  " Utopian"  is  the 
appearance  of  scientific  socialism.  It  begins  when  Karl 
Marx,  after  drawing  much  of  his  inspiration  from  the 
exponents  of  French  radicalism,  brushed  aside  their 
works  of  fancy  and  proceeded  to  study  historically  and 
critically  the  evolution  of  the  industrial  process  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  that  the  existing  forms  must  in  the 
nature  of  things  be  transformed  in  a  socialistic  direction.1 
As  this  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  problems  as  to  the 
nature  and  origin  of  scientific  socialism  so  called,  only 
citations  will  be  given  touching  this  much  mooted 
point.2 

Scientific  socialism  depended  upon  two  sources  for  its 
force ;  the  evolutionary  idealism  of  Hegel  on  one  side,3 

1  Seligman,  "  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,"  p.  26. 

2  "  Von  Babeuf  welcher  in  leidenschaftlicher  Weise  eine  radicale 
Umgestaltung   der    gesellschaftlicher  Verhaltnisse    bezweckt   hatte, 
gehen  wir  auf  Saint-Simon   iiber,  welche  dem  Vernichtungsprincip 
der  franzosischen  Revolution   das  Princip  rationeller  positiver  Re- 
form entgegensetzte,  weshalb  seine  Lehre  auch  als  der  Ausgangspunk 
des  wissenschaf tliche  Sozialismus  bezeichnet  wird."    Ruppert,  "  Das 
Soziale  System  Bazards,"  p.  10.   Cf.  Booth,  "Saint-Simon  and  Saint- 
Simonism";    Duhring,  "Kritische  Geschichte  der  National  Oeko- 
nomie,"  p.  249;   Menger,  "Right  to  the  Whole  Produce  of  Labor," 
translation,  pp.  83-84;  Barth,  "Sociologie  und  Philosophic,"  Vol.1, 
p.  23;  "Saint-Simon  CEuvres,"  Vol.  XIX,  pp.  81-84. 

1  Engels,  op.  cit.,  pp.  36  et  seq. 


INTRODUCTION  43 

the  materialistic  thought  of  Darwin  and  Spencer  on 
the  other.  Ferri  says:  "Marxian  socialism  has  tri- 
umphed, thanks  to  the  work  of  Darwin  and  Spencer."  l 

8.  In  explanation  of  the  divisions  chosen  for  this  study, 
a  few  special  features  marking  this  period  will  conclude 
this  introduction.  In  the  first  place,  not  only  the  con- 
ditions under  which  modern  socialism  could  arise,  but 
many  of  the  principles  of  socialism  in  its  more  radical 
aspects  begin  to  show  themselves  in  the  age  of  Sir 
Thomas  More.  It  is  equally  true  that  the  climax  of 
this  type  of  thought  was  reached  in  the  French  Revolu- 
tion. This  period  is  marked  by  a  search  for  principles 
upon  which  the  system  of  society  based  upon  private 
property  might  be  defended.2  The  period  of  the 
Revolution  saw  this  type  of  discussion  subside;  saw 
the  right  of  property  strengthened  and  confirmed  by 
being  lodged  in  positive  law  and  that  established  in 
France  by  the  will  of  a  democratic  society. 

As  has  been  stated,  this  period  was  clearly  marked  by 
the  theory  that  society  is  a  thing  not  so  much  of  nature 
as  of  reason.  This  is  true,  not  merely  of  socialistic 
theory,  but  of  political  and  economic  doctrine  as  well. 
In  the  economic  realm  the  system  of  mercantilism 
presented  the  conscious  plan  of  state-making  with  an 

'Ferri,  "Socialism  and   Positive  Science,"  p.  i.    Cf.  "Report  of 
Society  of  Social  Sciences,"  Jena,  1820;   also  Bonar,  op.  cit.,  p.  329. 
1  In  Chapter  VI  these  principles  are  set  forth  at  length. 


44       SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

economic  basis.  In  politics  the  theory  of  the  social 
contract  teaches  the  peculiar  rational  element  in  the 
formation  of  the  state  and  shows  this  period  fitted  for 
radical  schemes  of  social  reform.  •  The  logical  con- 
sequences of  this  type  of  thinking  are  seen  in  the  Age  of 
Reason  in  France  and  its  natural  fruitage  in  the  political 
experiments  of  the  period  of  the  Revolution.  Two 
illustrations  show  the  folly  of  radical  schemes.  One 
set  of  experiments  is  seen  in  the  political  sphere  during 
the  period  of  constitution-making  in  France.  The 
other  is  seen  in  the  economic  sphere  in  the  national 
workshops  of  1848.  Social  reformers  come  to  learn 
that  man  is  by  nature  a  political  being.  He  is  by 
nature  rich  or  poor,  employer  or  employed.  They 
come  to  the  opinion  that,  while  the  social  will  can  in 
many  ways  direct  social  growth,  it  cannot  remake 
society. 

Another  feature  marking  the  period  was  the  promi- 
nence of  agrarian  questions.  The  increase  of  capitalism 
and  its  many  influences  was  apparent,  but  till  the 
Revolution  the  dominant  fact  was  agriculture;  the 
leading  questions  were  agrarian  questions  and  the 
socialism  may  be  called  an  agrarian  socialism.  England 
was  prepared  for  an  industrial  type  of  economics  in  the 
time  of  Adam  Smith  and  for  the  economics  of  commerce 
when  Ricardo  wrote;  France,  however,  lingered  much 
later  in  the  agrarian  atmosphere  of  physiocracy. 


INTRODUCTION  45 

Problems  touching  the  relation  of  industrial  labor  and 
industrial  capital  show  themselves  after  the  Revolution. 

This  period,  moreover,  was  dominated  chiefly  by 
what  may  be  called  the  economy  of  consumption.  This 
holds  true  till  the  days  of  Adam  Smith.  He  marks 
what  may  be  called  the  beginning  of  the  pecuniary  age.1 
The  idea  of  use-value  had  been  more  emphasized  up  to 
the  time  of  Adam  Smith  who  laid  new  emphasis  upon 
exchange-value.  The  leading  demand  was  for  primary 
as  opposed  to  secondary  utilities.  This  phase  is  il- 
lustrated by  a  variety  of  sumptuary  laws  passed  in 
England.  One  aspect  of  mercantilism,  when  certain 
articles  of  luxury  were  forbidden,  displays  the  same 
attitude  toward  use-values.  This  same  view  will  be 
brought  out  in  discussing  the  writings  of  this  age. 
Under  such  conditions  it  was  natural  that  little  dis- 
tinction should  be  made  between  goods  for  consumption 
and  productive  wealth.  There  were  two  chief  classes 
of  goods,  consumption  goods  and  land.  There  has  ever 
been  a  tendency,  natural  and  hence  persistent,  to  view 
land  as  common  property;  which  has  led  easily  to  a 
demand  for  communism  in  land.2 

Before  the  Revolution,  there  was  lacking  that  larger 

1  Veblen,  "  Preconceptions  of    Adam   Smith,"  Economic  Journal, 
Vols.  13-14. 

2  Eden,  "The  State  of  the  Poor,  or  an  History  of  the  Laboring 
Classes  in  England,"  Vol.  i,  Ch.  i. 


46       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

social  unity  of  which  social  reformers  had  dreamed  since 
Plato  and  which  had  been  described  by  the  Christian 
Fathers  as  a  universal  brotherhood.  The  growth  of 
socialism  or  of  socialization  or  even  of  class  sympathy 
depended,  first,  upon  a  development  of  nationalism,  and 
second,  upon  the  wider  spirit  of  internationalism. 
Social  regeneration  depended  as  much  upon  national 
unity  as  did  political  organization.1  The  influence  of 
this  lack  of  unity  upon  the  larger  social  interests  was 
clearly  seen  and  forcibly  put  by  Turgot:  "Thus  the 
various  crafts  become  so  many  various  communities 
of  which  the  general  community  was  made  up.  The 
religious  brotherhoods,  by  tightening  the  cords  that 
united  the  individuals  in  the  same  crafts,  gave  them 
more  frequent  occasions  to  assemble  and  to  occupy 
themselves  in  the  common  interests  of  their  particular 
society, — interests  which  they  pursued  with  continued 
activity  to  the  prejudice  of  the  interests  of  society  in 
general."  2  The  possibility  of  this  larger  socialization 
depended  pretty  much  upon  the  same  fact  as  did  the 
growth  of  internationalism.  The  underlying  fact  in 
both  was  the  growth  of  the  new  capitalism. 

It  is  a  distinction  so  often  made  as  to  be  trite  that 
there  are  two  general  types  of  capital  —  trade  and  in- 
dustrial capital.  The  dominant  form  of  capital  before 

1  Schmoller,  "The  Mercantile  System,"  p.  47. 
*  Daire,  CEuvres  de  Turgot,  Vol.  II,  p.  304. 


INTRODUCTION  47 

the  Revolution,  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  period  here 
studied,  was  trade  or  commercial  capital.  The  period 
following  the  Revolution  was  marked  by  an  enormous 
expansion  of  industrial  capital,  which  introduced  an 
entirely  new  set  of  problems.1  Now  the  larger  signifi- 
cance lies  in  the  form  of  organization  which  each  of  these 
favored.  The  marked  tendency  of  trade  capital  was  to 
develop  the  smaller  groups;  it  was  a  great  nationaliz- 
ing force.  Mercantilism,  another  term  for  nationalism, 
was  engaged  almost  exclusively  with  commercial  capital. 
It  was  in  this  connection  that  capital,  that  is,  large  ac- 
cumulated funds,  began  to  exercise  influence  in  many 
directions.  The  large  trade  companies  of  Holland 
and  England  illustrate  this. 

In  like  manner  has  industrial  capital  been  connected 
with  the  international  or  cosmopolitan  doctrines.2 
This  change  of  doctrine  is  first  clearly  seen  in  the  teach- 
ings of  Adam  Smith,  who  discussed  the  economics 
of  manufacture  and  industry.  Along  with  the  growth  of 
this  international  aspect  of  capital  came  a  widening  of 
the  sympathies  of  the  laboring  classes  and  a  consequent 
broadening  of  the  basis  upon  which  social  agitation 
could  proceed  and  socialism  come  to  rest.  It  was  in 
1847  when  the  famous  Manifesto  of  Karl  Marx  sounded 
the  keynote  of  the  modern  socialist  struggle,  that  the 

1  See  Pecqueur,  op.  cit.,  pp.  565  et  seq. 
J  Schmoller,  op.  cit.,  p.  69. 


48       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

startling  call  for  union  of  laborers  everywhere  showed 
this  struggle  to  be  too  large  for  national  limits  and  the 
first  attempt  at  international  socialism  was  made.  The 
narrow  exclusiveness  still  regnant  in  the  days  of  Tur- 
got,  this  broad  international  aspect  seen  in  the  ill- 
starred  "International"  —  herein  lies  part  of  the 
antithesis  between  the  old  and  the  new  age. 

The  idea  so  much  discussed  in  later  literature,  that 
labor  is  a  commodity,  does  not  often  appear  in  the 
earlier  writings.  In  the  eighteenth  century  it  is  re- 
ferred to  in  some  such  terms.  Montesquieu  says: 
"A  man  is  not  poor  because  he  has  nothing,  but  be- 
cause he  does  not  work.  The  man  who,  without  any 
degree  of  wealth,  has  yet  an  employment  is  as  much  at 
his  ease  as  he  who,  without  labor,  has  an  income  of  a 
hundred  crowns  a  year.  He  who  has  no  substance 
and  yet  has  a  trade  is  not  poorer  than  he  who,  possessing 
ten  acres  of  land,  is  obliged  to  cultivate  it  for  his  sub- 
sistence. The  mechanic  who  gives  his  art  as  an  in- 
heritance to  his  children  has  left  them  a  fortune  that  is 
multiplied  according  to  their  number.  It  is  not  so 
with  him,  who,  leaving  ten  acres  of  land,  divides  it 
among  his  children."  l  Other  rather  remote  references 
to  this  idea  may  be  found.  Locke  approaches  the 
theory,  but  does  not  state  it.  This  aspect  of  the  prob- 
lem and  its  allied  theories  of  the  demand  and  supply 
of  labor,  etc.,  belong  to  the  new  age. 

1  "The  Spirit  of  Laws,"  Bk.  23,  Ch.  29. 


INTRODUCTION  49 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the 
earlier  age  was  under  the  economy  of  consumption; 
that  the  emphasis  was  laid  upon  use-values  rather  than 
upon  exchange-values.  This  has  been  contrasted  with 
the  later  principle  that  has  been  called  the  economy  of 
production.  Under  such  conditions  it  was  natural  that 
the  literature  before  the  Revolution  should  deal  with 
the  right  of  the  laborer  to  subsistence ;  while  after  the 
Revolution  the  notion  of  the  right  to  labor  should 
develop. 

The  attempt  to  establish  the  time  when  the  claim  was 
first  made  of  the  "right  to  labor"  will  not  be  made 
here.1  The  dominant  theory  before  the  Revolution 
was  the  right  to  subsistence ;  soon  after  it  the  new  idea 
of  the  right  to  labor  makes  itself  felt  and  heard. 
The  claims  of  modern  socialists  of  the  right  to  labor, 
of  the  "right  of  labor  to  the  full  product,"  of  the  right 
of  society  to  the  "unearned  increment,"  and  of  the 
exploitation  of  labor  by  capital  through  the  taking  of 
the  "  surplus-  value "  —  these  ideas  are  not  clearly  set 
forth  in  the  earlier  period. 

In  the  theory  of  the  right  to  subsistence,  distribution 
is  made  upon  the  basis  of  wants  and  leads  to  the  most 
radical  communism.  The  theory  of  the  right  to  labor 
while  making  radical  demands  upon  society  would 
distribute  goods  according  to  services  rendered;  it 

1  Menger  states  it  was  first  advanced  by  Fourier,  op.  cit.,  pp.  16-17. 


50       SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

demands,  however,  that  each  be  given  the  opportunity 
to  labor. 

The  theory  of  the  right  to  subsistence  appears  in 
many  different  forms  during  this  earlier  period.  Locke, 
in  his  "Two  Treatises  of  Government,"  states  it  as 
follows:  "Whether  we  consider  natural  reason  which 
tells  us  that  men,  being  once  born,  have  a  right  to  their 
preservation  and  consequently  to  meat  and  drink  and 
such  other  things  as  nature  affords  for  their  subsistence ; 
or,  Revelation  that  gives  an  account  of  those  grants 
God  made  of  the  world  to  Adam  and  his  Sons;  'tis 
very  clear  that  God,  as  King  David  said,  hath  given  the 
earth  to  the  children  of  men;  given  it  to  Mankind  in 
common."1  He  further  says:  "This  I  dare  boldly 
affirm,  that  the  same  rule  of  propriety,  viz.  that  every 
man  should  have  as  much  as  he  can  make  use  of,  would 
hold  still  in  the  world  since  there  is  land  enough  in  the 
world  to  supply  double  its  inhabitants." 

In  the  writings  of  Pufendorf  the  same  reasoning  may 
be  found.  He  considers  the  right  to  subsistence  a 
corollary  to  man's  existence.  "Since  that  God  Al- 
mighty hath  conferred  on  man  the  privilege  of  life, 
he  hath  at  the  same  time  supposed  to  have  allowed 
him  the  use  of  everything  necessary  for  the  keeping 
and  maintaining  of  that  his  gift." 2  Rousseau  and 

1  "Two  Treatises  of  Government,"  Part  II,  Ch.  V. 
J  "Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,"  Bk.  IV,  Ch.  III. 


INTRODUCTION  5 1 

Montesquieu  both  hold  that  society  owes  all  that  are 
born  into  it  the  means  of  subsistence.  The  same 
thing  may  be  said  of  those  writers  more  closely  exam- 
ined in  later  chapters.  Examination  of  the  English 
law  during  the  period  here  studied  will  show  that 
the  government  acted  upon  the  principle  that  all 
members  of  society  have  a  right  to  subsistence. 
This  was  an  underlying  principle  of  the  English 
poor-laws  from  Henry  VIII  down.  Not  nature,  but 
society  decides  that  there  is  a  place  ^at  the  board  for 
every  member  of  society.1 

As  opposed  to  the  later  theory  of  the  right  to  labor, 
the  duty  of  laboring  was  emphasized  during  the  poor- 
law  period.  The  connection  between  this  duty  and 
the  right  to  subsistence  was  clearly  appreciated.  Many 
of  the  so-called  poor-laws  were  vagrancy  laws  and 
contemplated  the  enforcement  of  this  duty  on  the 
"sturdy  vagabond."  The  modern  problem  of  a  lack 
of  labor  is  less  prominent  in  the  earlier  times.  Idle- 
ness was  viewed  as  a  crime  and  the  leisure  class  a 
menace  and  a  burden  to  society.  To-day  the  demand 
is  that  the  upper-class  labor;  earlier  the  opprobrium 
of  idleness  attached  to  the  lower-class  alone.  The 
more  developed  theories  of  the  right  to  labor  showed 
themselves  when  the  natural  rights  philosophy  had 
given  rise  to  a  whole  group  of  rights  supposed  to  inhere 

1  Cf.  Malthus,  "Essays,"  1803,  p.  5. 


52       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

in  the  individual,  the  existence  of  which  needed  no  fur- 
ther evidence  than  the  glittering  generalizations  of  the 
metaphysicians. 

Few  had  based  these  rights  of  labor  upon  the  theory 
that  labor  was  a  type  of  property.  Locke  puts  it  quite 
clearly.  "For  this  labor  being  the  unquestionable 
property  of  the  laborer,  no  man  can  have  a  right  to  what 
that  is  joined  to."  *  This  is  the  clearest  statement  of 
the  property  quality  in  labor  so  far  made.  In  the  period 
of  the  "natural  rights"  philosophers  appear  statements 
of  the  right  to  labor  based  upon  man's  inherent  right. 
"The  right  to  labor  is  a  natural  right.  It  has  been 
infringed  by  ancient  institutions,  but  their  infringe- 
ments have  been  justified  neither  by  time  nor  by  public 
opinion  nor  by  the  acts  of  authority  which  seem  to  have 
sanctioned  them."  2  Beginning  with  the  Revolution, 
the  principle  of  the  right  to  labor  is  clearly  recognized. 
The  practical  expression  is  seen  in  the  national  work- 
shops of  France  of  i848.3 

In  the  earlier  period  the  social  protest  lacks  definite- 
ness;  it  is  general,  vague,  and  visionary.  With  the 
Revolution  came  a  decided  change.  It  became  a 
class-struggle.  It  meant  the  struggle  of  one  class  to  get 
property  that  belonged  to  another  class  either  through 

1  "Two  Treatises  of  Government,"  Bk.  II,  Ch.  V. 
1  Daire,  CEuvres  de  Turgot,  Vol.  II,  p.  306. 
1  Menger,  op,  tit.,  pp.  24-26. 


INTRODUCTION  53 

actual  revolutionary  violence  or  through  proposed 
changes  in  the  method  of  distribution.1  The  earlier 
Utopian  socialism,  Marx  says,  "belonged  to  the  head  of 
theorists."  2  It  had  no  class-organization  back  of  it. 
These  early  theories  were  embodied  in  the  programme  of 
no  party,  had  the  sanction  of  no  congress,  were  de- 
fended by  no  conferences.  The  earlier  writers  had  no 
more  sign  of  a  "school"  than  had  Bacon  in  science  or 
Rousseau  in  politics.  Their  projects,  like  the  dreams 
of  equality  and  liberty  in  the  minds  of  liberalists,  were 
many  of  them  mere  vague  ideals  in  the  minds  of  philoso- 
phers, some  to  be  forgotten,  others  to  go  on  into  later 
systems  of  social  thought. 

Partaking  of  the  peculiarities  here  outlined,  this  earlier 
type  of  thought  had  great  revolutionary  possibilities.  It 
was  ready  to  break  totally  with  the  past,  which  is  the 
essence  of  revolution.  This  earlier  social  theory  rested 
upon  an  unshaken  confidence  in  the  masses.  It  was 
ready  to  undertake  a  radical  reconstruction  of  society 
because  of  an  unlimited  confidence  in  the  goodness  and 
perfectibility  of  the  ordinary  man. 

1  Villey,  "Le  Socialisme  contemporain,"  p.  4. 

2  Sombart,  "  Socialism,"  p.  106. 


CHAPTER  H 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND 

1.  An  idea  has  been  gained  in  the  preceding  chapter 
of  the  attitude  taken  toward  certain  of  the  economic 
problems   in   England   during  the   incipiency  of  the 
capitalistic  era.    The  government  tended  to  push  itself 
far  into  the  sphere  of  private  industry,  attempted  by 
law  to  offset  the  influence  of  competition,  and  also  to 
control  and  limit  the  power  of  monopoly.    The  new 
problems   thrust   before   the   public   by   the   gradual 
passing  of  the  old  and  the  coming  of  the  new  age  were 
met  by  a  set  of  regulations  at  once  detailed  and  com- 
prehensive.    The   widening   of   the   control   over   the 
lands  of  England  by  private  holders,  introducing  all 
the  evils  of  "Enclosures,"  had  called  forth  a  very  ex- 
tended interference  of  the  state  with  the  property-right 
and  illustrates  clearly  the  subjection  of  the  individual 
to  the  demands  of  the  social  will.     Briefly,  these  main 
facts  have  been  set  forth  as  a  prelude  to  a  discussion  of 
the  first  socialistic  theorist,  Sir  Thomas  More. 

2.  As  the  purpose  of  this  essay  is  not  biographical, 
only  brief  notice  will  be  paid  the  famous  author  of 
"Utopia."     Thomas   More   was  born   in   London   in 
1478  and  died  on  the  scaffold  in  1535,  a  victim  of  the 

54 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     55 

intolerance  and  despotism  of  his  royal  master,  Henry 
VIII.  As  a  young  man  he  was  intended  for  orders, 
but  later  drifted  into  the  law,  in  which  profession  he 
excelled.  He  held  a  variety  of  political  positions  of 
honor,  being  finally  called  to  be  the  successor  of  the 
fallen  Wolsey  as  Lord  Chancellor  of  the  realm  of  Eng- 
land in  1530.  Disagreeing  with  the  king  over  the 
Catholic  question,  he  was  charged  and  convicted  of  high 
treason  for  his  refusal  to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy 
and  was  beheaded  in  the  Tower.  Thomas  More, 
twice  married,  was  survived  by  four  children,  some  of 
whom  contributed  to  his  biography. 

There  is  little  dispute  as  to  the  high  place  More  holds 
among  the  great  scholars  and  statesmen  of  his  time. 
One  of  the  strongest  evidences  of  his  genius  is,  of 
course,  the  "Utopia."  The  second  feature  worthy  of 
mention  is  his  intellectual  environment.  More's  as- 
sociates were  the  ablest,  most  brilliant  men  of  the 
Renaissance  age.  He  was  in  the  closest  intimacy  with 
Colet  and  Erasmus  and  somewhat  less  familiar  with 
Linacre  and  Grocyn, — men  who  would  be  an  ornament 
to  any  age  and  in  any  country.  He  was  not  only  com- 
panion but  also  adviser  to  the  king  when  the  greatest 
minds,  not  only  of  England  but  of  the  Continent,  graced 
the  royal  capital.  He  appeared  amid  those  great  intel- 
lectual characters  whose  glory  added  fame  to  the  uni- 
versities of  Oxford  and  Cambridge.  Nor  was  More 


56       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

one  of  the  lesser  of  this  illustrious  group.  The  opinions 
of  his  contemporaries  show  this.  Seebohm  says: 
"Whether  it  was  thus  at  Oxford  that  Colet  formed  his 
high  opinion  of  More  is  not  known,  but  certain  it  is 
that  he  was  long  after  wont  to  speak  of  More  as  the  one 
genius  of  whom  England  could  boast." 1  These 
early  scholars  literally  fell  in  love  with  him.  Of  him 
Erasmus  said,  "A  readier  wit  than  he  had  ever  met." 
Later  writers  pay  equally  flattering  compliments  to  the 
genius  of  the  great  humanist. 

Thomas  More  was  one  of  the  brightest  lights  of  the 
Renaissance  age.  He  was  typical  of  what  was  best  in 
an  age  when  southern  culture  was  transforming  north- 
em  manners.  "More  represented  the  highest  perfec- 
tion discernible  among  the  men  of  the  Renaissance."  2 
The  place  More  occupied  in  the  state  testifies  to  his 
peculiar  political  power.  His  first  place  of  prominence 
was  in  the  House  of  Commons  as  its  youngest  member. 
So  powerful  was  his  influence  that  he  was  feared  by 
the  king  and  finally  driven  out.  His  success  before 
the  bar  needs  no  further  evidence  than  the  fact  that  he 
was  followed  by  Linacre  and  Grocyn  and  the  famous 
men  of  his  time.3 


1  Seebohm,    "  Oxford    Reformers,    John    Colet,    Erasmus,    and 
Thomas  More,"  London,  1887,  p.  25. 
'Lilly,  "Renaissance  Types,"  p.  309. 
1  Seebohm,  "  Oxford  Reformers,"  p.  143 ;  cf .  Roper,  op.  tit.,  p.  5. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     57 

Of  the  book  which  is  made  the  subject  of  these 
chapters  the  translator  and  critic  of  the  "Republic" 
says:  "The  'Utopia'  of  Sir  Thomas  More  is  a  surpris- 
ing monument  of  his  genius  and  shows  a  reach  of  thought 
far  beyond  his  contemporaries.  In  the  first  part  the  ele- 
ment of  pessimism  prevails  largely.  He  sees,  as  Plato 
did,  the  extreme  misery.  To  the  eye  of  More  the  whole 
world  was  in  a  condition  of  dissolution  and  decay."1 
The  "Utopia"  was  translated  into  several  languages 
at  a  time  when  printing  was  young  and  classical  litera- 
ture and  the  brilliant  writings  of  Renaissance  Italy  were 
pressing  themselves  upon  the  reading  world.2 

1  Introduction  to  "Republic,"  Jowett's  translation,  p.  ccxxi. 

2  Several  editions  of  his  famous  work  "Utopia"  have  been  edited 
at  different  times.     It  first  appeared  at  Lyons  in  1516,  one  year  before 
Luther's  advent  in  Germany.     A  second  edition  appeared  in  Lou- 
vain  in  1518.     In  1551  it  was  translated  from  the  Latin  into  English 
by  Ralph  Robynson.     This  translation,  made  almost  in  the  genera- 
tion of  More,  was  so  superior  that  since  then  it  has  been  the  standard 
and  is  still  quoted  as  the  most  authentic.     The  second  English  edi- 
tion appeared  in  1557.      "Utopia"  was   put  into    Italian  in  1548, 
appearing  in  Venice.     It  was  translated  into  French  in  1550,  and 
into   Spanish  in  1636.     Portions  of  the  "Utopia"  were  printed  in 
Brissot's  "  Bibliotheque,"  Vol.  9,  1772,  the  same  volume  where  may 
be  found  Proudhon's  famous  dictum,  "Le  Propriete  est  vol."     Of 
recent  editions  one  by  T.  F.  Dibdin  is  well  edited.     This  edition  is 
quoted  in  this  essay.     A  good  reprint  appears  among  "English  Re- 
prints," edited  by  Edward  Arber,  London,  1869,  Vol.  i.     The  most 
widely  known  is  the  John  Morley  edition.     Few  books  have  been  so 
fortunate  as  to  be  translated  into  so  many  languages  and  to  be  so 
widely  read,  losing  so  little  in  freshness  after  the  passage  of  nearly 
four  centuries. 


58       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

More's  "Utopia"  embodies  the  social  and  political 
thought  of  a  great  scholar  and  profound  student  of 
social  affairs,  written  at  a  time  when  few  were  seriously 
theorizing  on  social  problems.  During  leisure  snatched 
from  the  business  of  a  foreign  embassy,  he  conceived 
the  notion  of  embodying  his  social  and  political  ideas 
in  the  description  of  the  imaginary  commonwealth  — 
"Utopia."  1  Of  the  "Utopia"  Budaeus  said  to  Lupse- 
tus:  "We  owe  to  Thomas  More  the  discovery  of 
'  Utopia,'  for  he  hath  divulged  to  the  world  in  our  age 
a  pattern  for  a  happy  life  and  perfect  behavior.  This 
age  and  our  posterity  will  have  this  history  as  a  seminary 
of  most  wholesome  doctrine  and  from  which  they  may 
transport  and  accommodate  every  one  to  their  own 
cities  and  kingdoms  these  excellent  ordinances  and 
decrees." 2  As  a  contemporary  Paludanus  says  of 
"Utopia "  in  a  letter  to  Peter  Giles:  "You  may  see  in 
'Utopia'  as  in  a  looking-glass  whatsoever  belongeth  to 
a  perfect  commonwealth." 3  "  But  the  book  that  carry- 
eth  the  prize  of  all  the  books  is  'Utopia.'  He  doth  in 
it  most  lively  and  pleasantly  paint  forth  such  an  ex- 
quisite platform,  pattern,  and  example  of  a  singular  good 
commonwealth,  as  to  the  same  neither  the  Lacedaemo- 
nians nor  Athenians  nor  yet  the  best  of  all  the  others, 
the  Romans,  is  comparable." 

1  Seebohm,  op.  tit.,  p.  337.          *  Cresacre  More,  op.  cit.,  pp.  49-50. 
3  Ibid.  p.  50. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND       59 

Of  the  literary  style  of  the  book  little  need  be  said. 
At  the  opening  of  English  historical  prose  More  dis- 
plays a  fine  literary  taste.  The  "Utopia"  is  considered 
a  fine  piece  of  Latin  prose.  Of  him  Jowett  says: 
"More  was  gifted  with  far  more  dramatic  invention 
than  any  one  that  succeeded  him  with  the  exception  of 
Swift.  In  the  art  of  feigning  he  is  a  worthy  disciple 
of  Plato.  We  are  fairly  puzzled  by  his  manner  of 
mixing  up  real  and  imaginary  characters."  *  "  Thomas 
More  is  marvellous  in  every  respect ;  for  he  confoundeth 
most  eloquently  and  translateth  most  happily.  Noth- 
ing is  hard,  nothing  is  rugged,  nothing  obscure.  He  is 
pure,  he  is  elegant."  2 

The  "Utopia"  has  great  value  as  a  piece  of  history, 
dealing  with  the  events  which  its  author  saw  in  process 
about  him.  It  is  important  to  note  that  More  was 
really  the  first  English  historian ;  annalists  and  chroni- 
clers there  had  been,  but  no  historians.  This  better 
qualified  him  as  a  social  critic,  and  this  feature  in  itself 
gives  the  "Utopia"  a  substantial  worth.  "One  trust- 
worthy record  we  have;  one  that  has  ever  been  ap- 
pealed to  as  authentic ;  as  giving  an  unbiassed  estimate 
of  the  miseries  that  were  endured  by  the  poor  and  of 

1  Plato,  "Republic,"  Jowett's  translation,  Oxford,  1888.     Intro- 
duction. 

2  Letter  of  Beatus  Rhenanus,  quoted  by  Cresacre  More  in  "  Life 
of  Sir  Thomas  More,"  London,  1726,  p.  21. 


60       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

the  waste  and  pomp  of  the  rich."  l  The  importance  of 
such  pieces  of  contemporary  literature  as  the  "  Utopia," 
"The  Dialogues,"2  "Book  of  Surveying,"3  and  the 
like  cannot  be  easily  overstated.  Their  references  are 
not  numerous  nor  their  descriptions  lengthy.  There 
is,  however,  an  air  of  genuineness  about  them  that  is 
convincing.  " '  Utopia '  is  worthy  of  multiformed  study, 
not  only  from  its  reflection  of  the  character  and  ready 
wit  of  its  author;  from  its  proposed  solution  of  such 
social  problems  as  overpopulation,  its  prevention,  and 
the  like,  but  also  for  its  reference  on  the  conditions  of 
the  poor,  especially  of  the  'bondmen,'  the  then  dying- 
out  villeinage  of  England."  4 

3.  A  remark  worthy  of  note  on  the  history  of  this 
type  of  literature  is  its  relatively  small  amount  as 
compared  with  certain  other  types.  The  two  centuries 
contemplated  by  this  study  do,  indeed,  present  many 
illustrations  of  a  spirit  of  unrest  and  of  protest  against 
the  existing  social  and  economic  order,  and  perhaps 
the  expressions  are  freer  and  the  changes  suggested 
more  radical  than  in  other  spheres.  There  is,  however, 

1  Preface,  "  Dialogues  of  Starkey  " ;  see  below. 

z  Thomas  Starkey,  "  England  in  the  Reign  of  King  Henry  the 
Eighth,"  a  dialogue,  etc.  Early  English  Text  Society.  Extra  Series 
12. 

1  Fitzherbert,  "  Boke  of  Surveying." 

4  Arber,  "Reprints,"  p.  4;  cf.  Erasmus  Letter  to  William  Cope; 
"Papers  and  Letters  of  Henry  VIII." 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND       6 1 

a  very  meagre  and  fragmentary  literature.  In  com- 
parison with  those  writings  which  may  be  classified  as 
political  the  other  seems  very  insignificant.  One  need 
only  think  of  the  voluminous  works  of  Hobbes,  Locke, 
Grotius,  and  the  like  to  observe  how  the  religious-politi- 
cal and  not  the  social-economic  concepts  dominated 
the  time.  The  economic  view  of  the  world-order  had 
indeed  not  dawned.  The  treatment  of  social  problems 
and  of  economic  facts  is  far  more  unsystematic  and 
veiled  in  the  garb  of  fiction  and  romance  than  are  the 
political  treatises. 

As  this  study  is  an  attempt  to  gather  the  earliest 
suggestions  of  socialistic  doctrines  from  the  thought 
and  practice  of  the  incipient  stages  of  capitalistic  pro- 
duction, a  brief  inquiry  into  the  antecedents  and  the 
immediate  environment  of  the  thought  of  Thomas 
More,  a  set  of  events  of  considerable  influence  on  social 
thought  and  leaving  no  slight  mark  on  literature  in 
general,  will  now  be  made. 

Among  some  of  these  influences  of  actual  though 
of  uncertain  weight  was  the  discovery  of  new  lands  and 
of  primitive  peoples.  It  seems  true  that  the  dis- 
covery of  the  new  lands  and  the  subsequent  ex- 
ploration of  the  Americas  put  civilized  man  in  close 
touch  with  primitive  culture  for  the  first  time.  Many 
illustrations  may  be  found  where  different  grades  of 
culture  met.  Tacitus  had  studied  and  in  his  works 


62       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

described  the  German  tribes,  the  "forest-children"; 
but  these  were  quite  far  along  before  the  degenerate 
Romans  were  given  moral  lessons,  with  their  simple 
virtues  as  examples.  Here,  however,  a  return  to  nature 
and  an  imitation  of  simple  manners  and  purer  morals 
were  suggested,  much  as  they  have  been  by  compara- 
tively modern  writers.  Marco  Polo  interested  mediae- 
val Europe  in  remote  peoples  with  his  magic  stories  of 
the  dwellers  in  the  far  Orient;  he  described  a  people, 
however,  probably  older  and  more  cultured  than  the 
populations  he  addressed  in  his  descriptions  of  Tar- 
tary  and  the  Far  East.  But  with  the  discovery  of 
America,  the  civilization  of  Europe  was  brought  into 
touch  with  barbarism.  Then  it  was  that  primitive 
peoples  were  made  a  subject  of  thought  and  the  study 
of  ethnology  began. 

The  influence  of  this  new  thought  and  of  the  habits 
and  institutions  of  these  primitive  peoples  was  direct 
and  marked  upon  Thomas  More.  The  opening  of  the 
narrative  in  "Utopia"  shows  this.  Raphael  Hythlo- 
day,  into  whose  mouth  More  puts  the  most  important 
dialogue,  was  a  native  of  the  commercial  country, 
Portugal.  He  relates  how,  hoping  to  gain  knowledge 
of  strange,  remote  peoples,  he  had  joined  himself  to 
the  explorer  Amerigo  Vespuce.  It  was,  says  More, 
on  a  voyage  to  the  new  world  that  those  suggestions 
were  gathered  as  to  the  proper  ordering  of  a  state  which 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND      63 

is  so  graphically  described  in  the  constructive  part  of 
"Utopia."  *  The  work  of  More  is  one  of  the  earliest 
to  show  this  influence,  and  the  age  of  discovery  stimu- 
lated his  fancy.  He  was  the  first  to  take  the  newly 
discovered  primitive  peoples  and  their  institutions 
and  their  simple  ways  as  a  field  for  social  study  and  a 
model  for  a  possible  regenerated  society.2  Like  Saint 
Augustine  he  saw  ancient  civilization  and  its  ideals 
going  into  decay  about  him.  His  was  an  attempt  to 
call  people  back  to  the  earlier  culture,  to  a  simple  life. 
More's  "Utopia"  was  the  first  and  best  romance  of 
travel. 

To  the  literary  antecedents  and  environments  of 
Thomas  More  greater  interest  attaches.  Of  these 
sources  unquestionably  the  most  inspiring  was  the 

1  The  French  tended  at  first  to  idealize  the  American  aborigines. 
As  illustrations,  see  the  "  Voyage  de  Bourgainville  " ;  the  plays  of  Mrs. 
Aphra  Behn  and  kindred  writings;   to  her  is  credited  the  term  and 
concept  "Le  Bon  Sauvage."     The  English  attitude,  so  different,  is 
seen  in  the  writings  of  Swift ;   his  satires  are  a  bitter  attack  on  man- 
kind in  general.     Of  course  this  difference  in  attitude  is  seen  in 
actual  social  relationships.     The  French  have  freely  intermarried,  the 
English  did  not. 

2  This  type  of  teaching  and  writing  marks  the  beginning  of  that 
method  which  developed  into  that  introspective  study  of  the  pre- 
revolutionary  period  in  France.     It  was  an  attempt  to  study  man  in 
his  primitive  and  hence  in  his  supposedly  essential  and  unchanging 
qualities.     This  trend  of  thought  was  revolutionary  in  the  extreme. 
Why  preserve  social  conventions  and  government  if  happiness  and 
goodness  were  both  found  in  primitive  conditions  among  savage  folk? 
Cf.  Lichtenberger,  op,  cit.,  p.  28. 


64       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

"Republic"  of  Plato.  Plato  was  the  intellectual  father 
of  socialists  as  well  as  of  philosophers.  His  "Repub- 
lic "  was  the  model  on  which  most  later  artificial  social 
schemes  were  constructed.  It  furnished  not  merely 
the  form  of  social  control,  but  it  also,  as  has  been  re- 
marked, determined  the  manner  of  exposition.  More's 
"Utopia"  has,  however,  a  large  element  of  originality 
in  it. 

It  is  in  many  ways  unique.  The  general  notions  of 
the  two  men  differ  widely.  Plato  had  a  more  general 
abstract  end  in  view,  he  was  seeking  an  explanation  of 
abstract  justice;  More  was  interested  in  the  practical 
solution  of  actual  and  present  social  problems  and  busied 
himself  with  plans  to  alleviate  existing  unfortunate 
conditions.  He  was  busy  examining  the  widening 
gap  between  rich  and  poor,  and  believed  it  possible  to 
so  organize  society  as  to  avoid  the  threatened  evils. 
"More  wishes  to  devise  a  system  in  which  the  poor 
shall  not  perish  for  want  nor  the  rich  be  idle  through 
excess  of  their  riches."  l 

Of  the  same  type  of  work  was  the  "Republic"  of 
Cicero.  This  work  is  far  less  idealistic.  Cicero  was  a 
lawyer  and  a  man  of  affairs,  resembling  Thomas  More ; 
while  Plato  was  a  dreamer,  poet,  and  philosopher. 
Hence,  Cicero's  social  writings  are  matter-of-fact  and 

1  Arber,  "English  Reprints,"  p.  5. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND      65 

practical,  dealing  with  the  details  of  political  structure 
and  of  the  governing  bodies  instead  of  treating  the  more 
abstract  principles  of  social  life  and  organization. 
As  with  Plato  and  More,  property  and  its  validity  and 
utility  are  discussed,  but  far  more  superficially.  In 
Book  IV,  §  5,  Cicero  refers  to  Plato's  scheme  of  com- 
munism, which  he  condemns.  He  comments  on  the 
extreme  idealism  of  Plato  and  criticises  the  "Republic" 
as  shadowy  and  imaginary.  With  far  less  attention  to 
the  ideas  of  reform,  Cicero  sets  before  him  the  task  l 
of  treating  the  historical  development  of  an  actual 
commonwealth.  Cicero  discusses  in  a  cursory  manner 
a  state  of  nature  where  man  once  dwelt  without  sin  and 
fault  in  a  state  of  perfect  equality.  He  holds  that  the 
rise  of  social  institutions  brought  inequality  and  many 
social  wrongs.2 

Another  book  bearing  resemblance  to  More's  "  Utopia" 
is  by  the  more  famous  author,  Saint  Augustine,  "The 
City  of  God."  3  "The  City  of  God "  was  written  upon 
the  final  capture  of  Rome  by  the  barbarians  and  was 
inspired  by  the  extreme  sadness  and  by  the  unspeakable 
loss  occasioned  by  that  calamity.  It  was  written  when, 
to  all  appearances,  civilization  had  failed  and  was 
about  to  be  extinguished.  Written  by  the  great  monk 
to  defend  the  Christian  teachings,  the  book  presents  a 

1  Bk.  V,  Ch.  2-5.      2  Bk.  V,  Ch.  2.     •  "  De  Civitate  Dei." 

F 


66       SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

most  interesting  picture  in  contrast  with  the  unfortunate 
scenes  that  surround  the  writer.  "He  sits,  as  it  were, 
amid  the  ruins  of  the  City  of  Rome  and  beholds  a  vision 
of  the  City  of  God  descending  from  Heaven,  the  new 
Jerusalem,  which  was  to  take  the  place  of  the  worn-out 
social  organization  which  has  succumbed  alike  to  the  will 
of  God  and  the  violence  of  men."  x  As  an  attempt  at 
a  philosophy  of  history,  "The  City  of  God"  reveals  the 
perfect  social  state  as  one  where  love  and  holiness  rule 
instead  of  the  false  system  set  forth  in  Pagan  philosophy. 
Later  writings  of  a  similar  nature  which  mark  the 
close  of  the  scholastic  era  stimulated  More.  These 
earlier  writers  were  not  as  conscious  of  the  problem  as 
was  Thomas  More ;  in  fact,  it  had  not  taken  so  clear  a 
form.2  Some  writers  who  preceded  More  in  England, 
as  John  Ball  and  Langland,  seemed  to  have  grasped 
the  problem  and  to  have  seen  the  large  economic 
factor  in  the  social  and  ethical  questions  which  forms 
one  of  the  comer- stones  of  socialistic  philosophy. 
What  they  treat  in  poetry,  More  treats  in  a  more  matter- 
of-fact  manner  in  his  prose  works.  The  books  by 
Erasmus 3  are  highly  satirical,  and  are  not  comparable 
to  the  "Utopia." 

1  Preface  to  "  The  City  of  God,"  by  F.  R.  M.  Hitchcock,  p.  ix. 

*  Among  these  writers  fall  John  Wyclif,  Machiavelli,  Erasmus,  and 
the  like. 

'"Praise  of  Folly,"  "Christian  Prince";  cf.  Gibbins,  "English 
Social  Reformers,"  p.  i. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND      6/ 

Such  were  some  of  the  sources  from  which  Thomas 
More  drew  suggestions  and  inspiration.  Few  had  so 
far  discussed  the  social  situation  in  its  economic  aspects. 
Writers  had  appeared  who  dealt  with  various  sides  of 
economic  life.1  Others  had  discussed  the  problem  of 
property;2  the  prince  had  been  dealt  with  in  con- 
nection with  the  control  of  the  commonwealth ; 8  refer- 
ences had  been  made  to  poverty  and  its  evils  (in  poetry) ;  * 
society  had  been  bitterly  satirized  for  its  foibles  and 
follies ; 5  violent  attacks  had  been  made  on  the  social 
order.8  None,  however,  had  taken  so  broad  an  outlook 
on  social  life;  none  had  displayed  such  keen  insight 
into  social  problems  nor  given  so  sane  judgments  nor 
seen  so  clearly  the  economic  causes  of  social  evil  as 
had  the  great  humanist  —  Thomas  More.  He  dis- 
played a  power,  rare  in  any  age,  of  looking  out  of  his 
environment  and  beyond  his  time.  He  was  gifted  with 
the  capacity  to  see  that  another  and  better  condition  of 
society  was  possible.  He  realized  he  was  not  in  the 
best  possible  world  and  produced  a  scheme  which  he 
believed  would  allay  social  unrest.  About  him  were 
appearing  new  social  conditions  and  their  problems,  of 
which  it  was  natural  to  inquire  the  meaning.  The 
formation  of  classes,  the  constantly  widening  gap  be- 

1  Nicholas  Oresme.  *  Ball,  Langland,  Chaucer. 

1  Wyclif .  *  Erasmus,  "  Praise  of  Folly." 

*  Machiavelli,  "The  Prince."      'Huss  and  the  Bohemian  Revolt. 


68       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

tween  rich  and  poor,  the  accumulating  evils  of  poverty, 
were  growing  only  too  apparent.  These  constituted 
conditions  inviting  the  study  and  making  their  demand 
upon  the  ingenuity  of  the  philosopher  and  of  the  prac- 
tical statesman. 

4.  Back  of  every  socialistic  propaganda,  and  underly- 
ing every  radical  social  movement,  will  be  found  three 
facts:  There  must  exist,  in  the  first  place,  social  in- 
equality and  apparent  abuses  and  wrongs.  There  will, 
again,  be  a  certain  class,  more  or  less  conscious  of  these 
conditions ;  while  in  the  third  place  there  are  required 
philosophic  minds  to  observe  the  conditions,  to  point 
out  causes  and  the  way  to  a  remedy.  These  conditions 
existing,  reform  or  revolution  is  very  apt  to  ensue. 
Socialism,  then,  will  flourish  in  proportion  as  the  con- 
sciousness grows  that  there  is  something  vitally  wrong 
in  the  industrial  organization  of  society. 

The  appearance  of  "Utopia"  marks  the  beginning  of 
the  modern  social  problems  as  they  show  themselves 
in  the  incipient  stages  of  the  capitalistic  period.  Social 
movements  may  be  detected  as  the  old  order  is  passing 
and  the  new  order  is  appearing.  This  new  period  is 
marked  by  the  growth  of  distinct  and  self-conscious 
classes.  This  development  of  classes,  whose  lines  of 
cleavage  are  economic  and  industrial,  forms  one  of  the 
most  important  social  features  of  that  age  and  marks 
what  has  already  been  pointed  out  as  being  a  chief 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     69 

feature  in  modern  socialism  —  the  opening  of  the 
"class-struggle."  The  mediaeval  society  with  its  pe- 
culiar structure  and  self-sufficient  groups  with  their 
narrow  interests  gradually  yielded  to  a  wider  social 
unity. 

This  period  also  witnessed  the  attempt  to  more  and 
more  centralize  and  socialize  control  through  the  regu- 
lations of  the  general  government.  The  relations  of 
these  classes  slowly  coming  out  of  the  dissolving  feudal 
society ;  the  conflicts  they  wage  in  the  industrial  sphere ; 
the  powers  each  is  to  gain  in  law  and  the  position  they 
are  to  hold  in  the  customs  of  the  land  —  these  now 
begin  to  show  themselves  as  vital  factors  in  the  social 
problem. 

The  date  of  this  evolution  of  a  class-consciousness 
and  the  appearance  of  recognized  class-interests  may 
be  placed  in  the  fifteenth  century.  This  marks  rather 
definitely  the  transition  from  the  mediaeval  into  the 
modern  period.  The  earliest  assignable  date  for  the 
appearance  of  this  process  of  differentiation  is  that  of 
the  "Great  Plague,"  in  1348. 

There  are,  it  may  be  remarked,  three  very  commonly 
accepted  divisions  of  industrial  society.  These  three, 
the  land-holding,  capitalist,  and  labor  classes,  arising 
from  the  inherent  nature  of  the  industrial  process, 
have  been  accepted  as  valid  divisions  of  society,  whose 
interests  are  very  clearly  antagonistic.  The  Plague 


7O       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

did  very  much  in  England  to  bring  into  clearer  view 
the  lines  separating  these  classes. 

The  "Great  Plague,"  visiting  England  in  1348-1349, 
carried  off  about  one-half  of  the  population.  It  came 
to  England  at  a  time  when  the  agricultural  interests 
were  still  of  first  importance.  The  event  occurred, 
however,  when  the  feudal  system  had  been  so  far  dis- 
turbed as  to  make  the  landlord- class  quite  dependent 
upon  a  separate  labor-class.  The  immediate  effect  of 
the  plague  was  to  produce  a  scarcity  of  labor,  which  fact 
showed  more  clearly  the  place  the  laborer  had  filled  in 
society.  It  precipitated,  in  an  acute  form,  one  of  the 
problems  of  the  modern  day  —  a  bad  distribution  of 
labor  both  between  localities  and  among  the  differ- 
ent industries.  The  laborers,  taking  advantage  of  the 
scarcity  of  labor,  asked  for  increased  wages.  The 
landlord- class  and  its  interests  then  appear  in  direct 
antagonism  to  the  interests  of  labor  and  of  the  labor- 
ing class.  Legislation  was  enacted  to  keep  wages 
down. 

At  this  time  also  appears  the  capitalist- class  with  its 
peculiar  demands.  The  conflict  of  interests  of  the  land- 
owners as  against  the  capitalists  appears  in  their  com- 
petition for  that  labor  which  before  had  been  employed 
on  the  land.  "The  landowners  began  to  fear  their 
lands  would  not  be  cultivated  and  were  compelled  to 
buy  labor  at  a  higher  price  than  would  have  been 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     71 

given  at  a  time  when  the  necessity  of  the  laborer  to 
the  capitalist  was  more  obscured."  1  The  "  Statute 
of  Laborers"  is  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  noted 
instances  where  a  legislative  body  was  called  upon  to 
solve  the  rate-of-wages  problem.  Here  was  the  state 
interfering  with  the  economic  law,  according  to  which 
scarcity  would  cause  a  rise  in  price.  In  this  case  may 
be  found  many  of  the  features  of  modern  conditions. 
Here  was  unity  of  purpose  in  a  class  —  the  struggle  for 
higher  wages.  Labor  also  was  becoming  more  mobile, 
to  be  controlled  by  subsequent  legislation.  These 
laborers,  gradually  growing  into  a  class,  were  at  the  same 
time  being  freed  from  the  land  with  its  benefits  and  its 
limitations. 

What  took  place  in  France  during  the  Revolution 
and  in  Prussia  after  the  battle  of  Jena,2  occurred  so 
much  earlier  in  England.  "The  class  of  free  laborers 
and  tenants  and  laborers  who  had  commuted  their 
services  were  oppressed,  and  the  ingenuity  of  the  law- 
yers who  were  employed  as  stewards  on  each  manor 
was  exercised  in  trying  to  restore  to  the  landowners 
that  customary  labor  whose  loss  was  now  so  severely 
felt.  The  result  was  a  gradual  union  of  laborers  and 
tenants  against  landowners  and  employers  —  the  begin- 
ning of  a  social  struggle  in  which  we  recognize  the 

1  Gibbin,  "Industry  in  England,"  N.  Y.,  1898,  p.  153. 
1  Marking  the  humiliation  of  Prussia,  1806. 


72       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

unfortunate  modern  tendency  of  a  hostile  confronta- 
tion of  labor  and  capital."  1 

In  this  process  of  segregation  of  classes,  the  increase 
of  large  farming  played  an  important  part.  This 
change  in  the  nature  of  farming  led  to  a  vast  increase 
of  laborers  who  gradually  became  detached  from  the 
soil  and  separated  from  the  tenant  class. 

Two  leading  facts  tended  to  produce  this  result. 
In  the  first  place  the  growth  in  the  size  of  the  farms  led 
to  an  increase  of  stock-farming  or  of  the  application  of 
the  capitalistic  methods  to  agriculture ;  in  this  case  large 
amounts  of  capital  were  invested  by  the  holder  with  the 
result  of  giving  a  large  employment  to  wage-labor. 
This  led  to  the  growth  of  an  independent  labor-class 
and  also  a  type  of  agricultural  capital  dependent  upon 
this  same  labor-body.  The  type  of  extensive  farming 
was  largely  devoted  to  pasturage,  and  thus  a  less  demand 
for  labor  was  created  than  existed  under  intensive  cul- 
tivation. Thus  there  was  a  larger  body  of  free  labor 
than  the  existing  industries  could  absorb  and  there 
followed,  what  so  frequently  follows  invention  and 
radical  industrial  changes,  a  class  with  no  land  and 
no  market  for  their  only  commodity,  —  labor.  For 
the  growth  of  this  separate  labor-class  meant  the  growth 
of  a  body  of  men  with  nothing  to  sell  but  their  labor, 

1  Gibbin,  op.  cit.,  p.  154.  Cf.  Jessop,  "  Coming  of  the  Friars," 
N.  Y.,  1889,  pp.  254,  256. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     73 

and  this  in  a  time  when,  to  an  ever  increasing  extent  as 
feudal  institutions  vanished,  some  equivalent  must  be 
offered  for  a  share  in  the  social  wealth. 

More  and  more  through  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth 
centuries  were  the  old  feudal  and  manorial  relationships 
breaking  down.  Slowly  the  personal  bonds  which 
held  servant  to  master,  through  a  recognition  of  mutual 
duties,  were  being  weakened,  and  the  money  relation- 
ship was  taking  their  place.  Through  commutations 
of  various  kinds  and  in  many  spheres  the  "cash  nexus," 
as  Carlyle  called  it,  came  to  displace  the  milder,  more 
humane,  domestic  relationships  of  the  earlier  times.  As 
these  classes  grew  wider,  there  appears  a  horizontal 
stratification  of  society ;  "Feudalism  was  an  aggregation 
of  local  groups."  *  This  type  of  organization  must 
vanish  before  any  class-organization  could  appear. 
With  the  break-up  of  this  feudal  organization  from  the 
time  of  Richard  II,  the  way  was  being  cleared  for  a 
new  classification.  Employer  and  employed,  landlord 
and  tenant,  laborer  and  capitalist  —  these  new  terms 
creep  into  the  parlance  of  the  times,  and  these  new 
classes  slowly  appear  above  the  surface. 

A  feature  of  this  period  very  early  discernible  is 
the  passing  of  dispossessed  tenants  and  laborers  over 
into  a  permanent  class.  This  condition  is  necessary 

1  Cunningham,  "The  Growth  of  English  Industry  and  Commerce 
in  Modern  Times,"  Cambridge,  1892,  pp.  338,  339. 


74       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

to  any  effective  social  movement.  Where  conditions 
are  such  that  the  members  cannot  move  into  a  higher 
nor  sink  to  a  lower  sphere,  there  is  possible  a 
class  solidarity,  and  effective  social  agitation  may 
follow. 

Among  the  causes  operating  in  the  age  of  More  and 
which  were  effective  in  producing  conditions  of  social 
unrest,  none  was  more  important  than  the  "enclosures." 
It  was  this  social  change,  going  on  so  rapidly  in  the  time 
of  More,  that  he  so  bitterly  condemns,  and  for  which  he 
seeks  a  remedy  in  law.  The  general  attitude  toward 
enclosures  is  cleverly  put  by  an  eighteenth- century 
pamphleteer: 1  "The  enclosures  of  commons  and  com- 
mon-fields has  not  been  more  deprecated  by  one  set 
than  by  another.  The  landowner,  seeing  the  great 
increase  of  rent  made  by  his  neighbor,  conceives 
the  desire  of  following  his  example;  the  village  is 
alarmed;  the  cottager  not  only  expects  to  lose  his 
commons  but  the  inevitable  consequence  of  a  diminution 
of  his  labor,  being  obliged  to  quit  his  place  in  search  of 
work."  The  important  fact  here  noted  is  the  separa- 
tion of  the  laborer  from  the  land  with  the  increase  of 
that  class  whose  members  have  no  land  nor  access  to 
any.  "I  have  seen  some  small  farmers  in  enclosed 
places,  starving  with  their  families  till  necessity  had 

1  "The  Advantages  and  Disadvantages  of  Enclosure  of  Waste 
Land,"  A  Country  Gentleman,  p.  36. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND      75 

driven  them  to  quit  their  farms  and  betake  themselves 
to  labor." 

Of  the  different  types  of  enclosing,  that  of  the  commons 
caused  the  most  hardship  and  was  most  productive  of 
a  landless  labor-class.  It  was  against  this  form  of 
enclosure  the  most  complaint  was  made  and  that  led 
to  the  protest  and  opposition  of  Thomas  More. 

The  rate  of  enclosure  differed  widely  in  the  two 
periods.  "It  was  most  rapid  in  the  periods  from  1470 
till  1530  and  from  1760  to  1830."  1  Ashley  throws  the 
emphasis  on  the  earlier  period.  "  The  period  may  be 
defined  more  definitely  as  that  lying  between  1470 
and  1600;  with  the  understanding  that  during  the 
first  sixty  years,  from  1470  to  1530,  the  transformation 
was  far  more  violent."  2  During  this  period  it  was  the 
common  land  that  was  in  question,  whose  enclosure  was 
most  effective  in  creating  social  unrest.3  The  loss  of 
this  land  was  of  importance  to  the  laborers  who,  while 
earning  wages,  had  also  rights  on  the  commons.4  The 
evils  of  enclosures  had  been  most  apparent  with  that 
growing  body  of  half-dependent,  wage-earning  class 

1  Gibbins  "  Industry  in  England,"  p.  215. 

z  Ashley,  Introduction  to  "  English  Economic  History  and  Theory," 
N.  Y.,  1894,  Vol.  II,  pp.  286-287. 

s  Warner,    "Landmarks   in   Industrial   History,"   London,    1899, 

P-  139- 

*  Prothero,  "  Pioneers  and  Progress  of  English  Farming,"  London, 
1888,  p.  21. 


76       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

that  was  just  passing  over  into  a  lifelong  propertyless 
labor-body.  "The  two  classes  that  eventually  suffered 
most  were  '  common  field  farmers,'  to  use  the  eighteenth- 
century  description,  and  the  cottagers  or  emancipated 
serfs,  who  had  no  share  in  the  agrarian  community, 
but  lived  as  hired  laborers  supplementing  their  wages 
by  keeping  cattle  on  the  rough  pasture."  1  Up  till  the 
close  of  the  fifteenth  century  not  many  laborers  were 
doomed  to  a  life  of  labor  with  no  by-industry.  There 
had  been  at  their  disposal  a  certain  amount  of  land 
where  at  least  their  cattle  might  graze.  "We  are  not 
to  conceive  of  these  laborers  as  a  body  of  men  in  regu- 
lar employment  at  fixed  wages;  the  number  of  per- 
manent laborers  on  the  demesnes  seems  to  have  been 
small." 2  When,  however,  the  process  of  enclosures 
had  progressed,  these  half -laborers,  half -farmers,  robbed 
of  their  right  to  the  common  lands  and  deprived  of  the 
labor  furnished  by  the  farmers,  must  leave  the  condition 
of  cotters  and  join  the  proletariat  class.3 

The  effect  of  this  process  was  to  develop  this  class 
of  labor,  free  from  the  obligations  of  feudal  times,  but 
leaving  the  laborers  without  the  support  and  protection 
then  insured.  "The  various  'Statutes  of  Laborers' 
which  from  this  day  appear  on  the  English  statute 
books  were  a  confession  that  the  day  when  the  lords  of 
the  manors  could  require  the  personal  services  of  their 

1  Prothero,  op.  cit.,  pp.  20-21.        2  Ashley,  op.  tit.,  p.  267.        *  Ibid. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND      77 

tenants  in  return  for  the  lands  they  held,  had  gone."  * 
It  was  from  this  class  of  dispossessed  cotters  and  half- 
dependent  laborers  that  the  ranks  of  the  poor  were 
swelled  and  a  body  of  vagrants  created.  It  was  this 
condition  that  called  forth  those  laws  for  the  better- 
ment of  the  labor-class  hi  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  and 
subsequently.  It  was  English  society,  marked  by 
some  such  features,  that  formed  the  field  of  study  to 
Thomas  More. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  the  discussion  of  modern 
socialism  is  chiefly  concerned  with  the  method  of  pro- 
duction known  as  capitalistic.2  Socialism,  having  to 
do  with  the  distribution  of  surplus-values,  produced 
under  a  complicated  system  of  division  of  labor  and 
function,  giving  rise  to  both  personal  and  functional 
distribution,  must  of  necessity  contemplate  that  vast 
increase  of  capital  upon  which  division  of  labor  depends 
and  which  so  complicates  the  industrial  process.  The 
age  of  More  witnessed  a  very  great  growth  of  industrial 
capital.  As  has  been  intimated,  capital  was  accumulat- 
ing not  only  for  purposes  of  trade  and  commerce  as 
evidenced  by  the  organization  of  trade  companies; 


'Denton,  "England  in  the  Fifteenth  Century,"  1888,  p.  113. 

2  The  importance  of  the  study  of  the  early  English  conditions  as 
an  introductory  study  in  socialism  will  appear  clearer  when  it  is 
remembered  that  from  this  field  Marx  drew  his  material  for  his 
system. 


78       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE   FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

capital  was  also  being  applied  to  agriculture  and  to 
manufacture.1 

The  flowing  of  capital  into  these  channels  had  certain 
results  on  labor  already  pointed  out.  It  had,  further- 
more, the  effect  of  converting  agriculture  from  what 
may  be  called  subsistence  into  capitalistic  or  profit- 
making  farming.  This  meant  that  where  before  there 
had  been  an  intensive  culture  for  home-consumption 
there  now  developed  extensive  culture  for  the  market, 
this  also  growing  more  extended.  This,  in  turn,  led  to 
a  profit-making  farming-class,  and  to  the  creation  of  a 
surplus-value  to  go  to  swell  the  fund  of  capital,  instead 
of  going,  as  previously,  to  the  support  of  a  more  crowded 
laboring  population  on  the  farms.  Thus  came  about 
the  growth  of  capital,  saving  the  surplus-value  on  one 
hand,  and  driving  away  the  cotter- class  into  vagrancy 
or  into  a  propertyless  labor-class  on  the  other  hand. 
Here  the  modern  socialist  philosophy  and  protest  could 
take  its  rise.  At  this  point  the  historical  socialism  of 
Karl  Marx  can  be  said  to  begin.  Here  the  capitalistic 
exploitation,  if  such  a  thing  exists,  may  be  first  noted 
in  English  industrial  history. 

5.  It  is  not  strongly  insisted  that  the  first  condition 
necessary  to  a  social  revolution,  i.e.  the  existence  of  a 
class  keenly  conscious  of  social  wrongs,  had  very  far 

1  Economic  Review,  Vol.  6,  p.  28.  Cf.  List,  "Das  Nationale 
System  der  Politischen  Oekonomie,"  1845,  Ch.  I. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF   SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND      79 

developed  in  England  by  the  age  of  Thomas  More. 
It  may  be  safely  urged,  however,  and  certain  facts  in 
evidence  have  been  presented,  that  such  a  class  was  in 
process  of  formation  and  that  thus  early  are  the  incipient 
stages  of  a  class-struggle  along  economic  lines.  The 
second  condition  laid  down  above  also  was  presented; 
viz.,  the  hardships  and  misery  more  or  less  obviously 
connected  with  social  injustice  and  wrong.  As  a 
mouthpiece  of  this  voiceless  class,  Thomas  More  looked 
out  on  certain  evils  in  English  society,  the  chief  of 
which  will  be  here  briefly  portrayed. 

The  rapid  displacement  of  the  cotter  population 
through  the  process  of  enclosures,  produced  an  abnor- 
mal quantity  of  free  labor  and  led  to  the  impoverish- 
ment of  the  cotters.  This  fruitful  cause  of  discontent 
and  social  unrest  had  been  operating  for  a  century,  but 
it  had  become  much  more  active  during  the  lifetime 
of  More.  Laws  were  passed  against  this  evil,  and  in 
favor  of  those  most  injured  in  the  process;  but  these 
had  been  largely  evaded  or  ignored,  and  the  injury 
increased  as  time  went  on.  The  laws  point  out  the 
process  of  enclosures  as  the  "decay  of  the  people"; 
it  had  turned  many  poor  laborers  into  vagabonds; 
it  turned  the  peaceful  cotter  out  of  his  home  and  com- 
pelled him  to  seek  labor  elsewhere  or  to  join  the 
increasing  army  of  beggars. 

Fitzherbert  in  his  "Book  of   Surveying"  discusses 


80       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

the  hardships  of  sixteenth- century  life  arising  from  the 
enclosures.  He  relates  how  in  the  olden  time  the 
condition  of  the  cotter  was  so  much  better;  then  all 
the  land  lay  in  common  and  undivided  as  pasture. 
"Then  was  their  tenement  much  better  chepe  than  they 
are  now ;  for  a  most  part  the  lords  hath  enclosed  a  great 
part  of  their  waste  grounds  and  straitened  their  tenants 
of  their  commons  therein ;  also  they  have  enclosed  their 
desmesne  lands  and  meadow  and  kept  them  in  severally 
so  that  the  tenants  have  no  commons  with  them 
therein." l 

The  complaints  became  loud  and  bitter.  The  at- 
tempts at  a  remedy  through  the  statutes  were  ineffec- 
tive. Attacks  were  made  on  the  landed  aristocracy  in 
much  the  same  spirit  that  the  modern  socialist  condemns 
the  greed  of  the  capitalist.  One  took  the  form  of  an 
agrarian  uprising;  the  other  produces  an  industrial 
disturbance.  An  advance  of  wages  to  offset  the  effect 
of  the  enclosures  would  have  been  suitable  remedy; 
this  did  not  find  place  and  in  the  transition  great  hard- 
ship, it  seems,  was  endured.  "  But  during  the  busy 
seasons  of  the  year  a  score  or  two  of  men  and  women 
would  be  engaged;  and  the  wages  then  earned  would 
be  an  important  addition  to  the  produce  which  they 

1  Scrutton,  "  Commons  and  Common  Fields,  or  the  History  and 
Policy  of  Laws  relating  to  Commons  and  Enclosures  in  England," 
Cambridge,  1887,  p.  79. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND      8 1 

gained  from  their  small  plots  and  from  their  rights  of 
commons."  * 

A  second  feature  in  the  situation  deserves  emphasis 
here.  The  course  of  events  that  had  brought  about  the 
enclosures  had  the  further  effect  of  raising  considerably 
the  rents  and  also  of  driving  up  the  level  of  prices. 
"With  the  demand  for  land  and  the  almost  universal 
rise  of  prices  came  an  increased  rent ;  the  small  free- 
holders and  those  that  lived  by  the  plough  found  it 
harder  and  harder  to  gain  a  living ;  the  poor  men  who 
relied  upon  the  commons  for  the  grazing  of  their  one 
cow  saw  it  surcharged  by  the  sheep  of  wealthy  graziers, 
enclosed  by  rich  nobles  for  their  sheep  farms,  or  con- 
verted into  a  park  for  their  deer."  2 

On  the  problem  of  the  actual  change  of  wages  that 
occurred  at  this  time,  no  definite  statements  can  be 
made.  The  continued  researches  made  by  eminent 
scholars  into  the  history  of  wages  and  their  variations 
have  brought  forth  very  little  that  is  conclusive.  The 
problem  becomes  too  complicated  with  so  many  vari- 
ants. The  rate  of  wages,  unit  of  payment,  value  of 
money,  length  of  day,  standard  of  prices,  and,  finally,  the 
standard  of  living  of  the  time  varying  as  they  do,  a 
definite  solution  is  scarcely  to  be  expected.  One  thing 
seems  certain,  that  no  rise  of  wages  took  place  commen- 
surate with  the  losses  experienced  by  the  less  advantaged 

1  Ashley,  op.  cit.,  p.  267.      *  Scrutton,  op.  tit.,  p.  75. 


G 


82       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

classes.  Despite  the  attempts  at  betterment,  the  peti- 
tions sent  in  for  legislation  and  the  good  intentions  of 
the  Tudor  monarchy,  conditions  grew  worse  during  the 
last  half  of  the  fifteenth  and  the  first  half  of  the  six- 
teenth century.1  It  was  some  such  conditions,  then,  that 
met  the  eye  of  Thomas  More  and  suggested  the  "Uto- 
pia," the  first  work  written  in  the  modem  age  that  saw 
the  roots  of  social  evil  reaching  the  soil  of  economic 
maladjustment. 

6.  It  is  a  contention  of  this  thesis  that  socialism  in 
many  of  its  phases  and  as  presented  by  its  earlier  ad- 
vocates is  at  once  a  revolutionary  and  a  reactionary 
system  of  thought.  It  will  be  shown  in  a  later  chapter 
that  the  fundamental  principles  of  eighteenth-century 
socialism  were  deduced  from  a  study  of  the  qualities 
of  primitive  man.  The  strongest  defenders  of  the 
communistic  features  of  socialism  fall  back  to  the  con- 
ditions of  primitive  society  where,  it  is  contended,  the 
right  of  property  did  not  exist.2  The  same  habit  of 
mind  is  here  attributed  to  Sir  Thomas  More.  He  was 
in  many  ways  a  decided  reactionary.  He  looks  rather 
to  the  past  than  to  the  future.  He  seeks  rather  to  re- 
turn to  the  simple,  happy  past  than  to  reach  an  ideal 
future.  The  place  of  More,  then,  can  be  best  appreciated 
by  noticing  his  relation  to  the  large,  progressive  move- 

1  Cunningham,  op.  tit.,  pp.  348-368. 

1  Kautsky,  "  Vorlaufer  des  neueren  Socialismus,"  Einleitung,  p.  i. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     83 

ments  then  in  process  about  him.  His  work  will  be 
seen  as  one  of  restoration  rather  than  of  construction. 
The  first  writer  who  broke  with  the  past  and  was 
constructive  was  Campanella,  a  forerunner  of  the  later 
constructive  reformers.1  The  attitude  of  More,  in  this 
respect,  may  be  studied  in  relation  to  some  of  the 
very  significant  facts  of  his  day, — the  growth  of  private 
property,  the  Revival  of  Learning,  and  the  Reformation. 

As  has  been  indicated,  More  was  one  of  the  bitterest 
opponents  of  enclosures,  then  so  limiting  the  use  of 
common  lands  in  England.  Complaints  had  begun  to 
be  loud  and  bitter  by  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, and  More  joined  in  the  protest,  not  against  the  ille- 
gality, but  against  the  social  wrong  of  the  enclosures.2 
He  hoped  to  stem  the  tide  of  economic  change  that 
had  set  in  toward  a  capitalistic  method  of  production 
and  a  more  individualistic  system  of  property  control. 

The  process  of  enclosures  was  only  one  of  many 
phases  of  the  evolution  of  the  system  of  private  property. 
This  meant  the  destruction  of  communal  rights  and  the 
coming-in  of  individualism  with  a  vengeance.  From 
this  point  of  view  one  can  understand  More's  tendency 
toward  communism.  He  stood  out  against  the  radical 
social  changes  in  structure  and  in  industrial  method 

1  Franck,  "  R£f ormateurs  et  publicistes  de  1'Europe,"  Paris,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  6-7. 

2Denton,  op.  oil.,  pp.  160-161. 


84       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

which  were  going  on  about  him.  He  wished  a  return 
to  an  earlier,  and  hence  a  simpler,  form  of  social  life. 
He  was  in  favor  of  the  milder,  more  humane  spirit  of 
manorial  control  where  "every  rood  maintained  its 
man"  and  "health  and  plenty  blessed  the  laboring 
swain."  More  advocated  a  return  to  the  communal 
rights  of  the  cotter  system.  He  also  favored  limita- 
tions on  the  introduction  of  capital  and  encouraged  the 
development  of  agriculture. 

The  position  More  took  to  the  mighty  religious 
movements  of  his  day  displays  also  his  conservative 
spirit  and  his  regard  for  tradition.  Regarding  the 
Reformation,  More  was  an  ultra-conservative.  He 
remained  a  devout  Catholic,  refused  to  acknowledge 
Henry  VIII  as  head  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
suffered  martyrdom  for  his  course.  Against  this  re- 
ligious innovation  he  was  as  reactionary  as  he  was 
regarding  economic  changes.  The  Reformation  meant 
the  breaking  down  of  feudalism  on  its  religious  side, 
and  More  opposed  this  change  with  vigor.1 

More's  attitude  toward  the  New  Learning  seems  at 
first  sight  rather  inconsistent.  He  was  a  most  devoted 
advocate  of  the  Renaissance,  and  was  chiefly  influential 
in  leading  Henry  VIII  to  introduce  the  classics  and  clas- 
sical culture  into  England.  The  New  Learning  had, 

1  Tulloch,  "  Leaders  of  the  Reformation,  Luther,  Calvin,  Latimer, 
Knox,"  Edinburgh,  1860,  p.  308. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     85 

however,  showed  such  tendencies  and  been  so  opposed 
by  the  church  and  the  conservative  element  that  More's 
ardor  in  espousing  the  new  movement  seems  strange. 
In  Italy  it  had  led  to  a  new  type  of  infidelity  and  a  denial 
of  the  Catholic  faith.1  In  Germany  it  had  stood  op- 
posed, not  alone  to  the  Catholic  power,  but  to  religious 
faith  itself.*  In  England  it  had  been  opposed  by  the 
clerical  authorities  and  by  the  councils  of  Oxford  and 
Cambridge,  and  was  only  introduced  through  the  efforts 
and  influence  of  such  men  as  Linacre,  Colet,  and 
Thomas  More.3 

When  More  had  come  to  power  and  influence  in 
England,  learning  had  ceased  to  be  merely  a  handmaid 
of  the  church  and  had  come  to  have  a  broader  cultural 
purpose.4  Of  this  type  of  movement  More  was  one  of 
the  most  important  popularizers  and  patrons.  He  saw 
in  it  no  enemy  of  the  church  nor  of  religion.  He  saw 
in  the  Revival  of  Learning  a  new  force  for  the  enlarging 
and  enriching  of  life.  The  chief  feature  of  the  Renais- 
sance was  the  return  to  ancient  models.  The  Revival 
of  Learning  meant  the  reversion  of  Europe's  best 
thought  to  the  ancient  classics  and  the  ancient  civili- 

1  Seebohm,  op.  cit.,  p.  368. 

1  Paulsen,  "  Geschichte  der  Hoheren  Schulen  Deutschlands," 
Einleitung. 

*  Einstein,  "  Italian  Renaissance  in  England,"  N.  Y.,  1902,  p. 
44- 

4  Ibid.,  p.  46- 


86       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

zation.    In  this,  as  in  other  instances  cited,  tradition 
dominates  the  mind  of  the  great  humanist. 

There  was  nothing,  therefore,  inconsistent  in  the 
support  More  gave  the  Renaissance  and  his  opposition 
to  the  Reformation.  He  did  not  desert  Christian  for 
Pagan  principles.  He  did  not  ally  himself  with  Machia- 
velli  and  his  theories  to  the  denial  of  the  ethics  and 
politics  of  the  Christian  Fathers.  Neither  More  nor 
his  close  associate,  Erasmus,  accepted  the  ethical  nor 
the  political  conclusions  of  the  new  doctrine,  but  were  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  Machiavellian  school  and  re- 
buked the  attacks  on  Christian  morals.  The  case  is 
well  stated  by  Seebohm:  "And  possibly  it  may  have 
been  in  some  measure  due  to  their  efforts  that  a  century 
later,  Hugo  Grotius,  the  father  of  international  law, 
was  able  in  the  name  of  Europe  to  reject  the  Machia- 
vellian theory  as  one  that  would  not  work  and  to  adopt 
in  its  place  the  Christian  theory  as  the  one  that  was 
sanctioned  by  nature  and  upon  which  it  alone  was  safe 
to  found  the  polity  of  the  civilized  world."  1  More 
sees  and  presents  the  place  of  religion  and  morals  in 
the  social  scheme ;  instead  of  abandoning  these  forces, 
he  is  the  first  writer  of  a  purely  social  treatise  to  make 
emphatic  their  importance  in  social  life.  He  sees  society 
as  a  result  of  the  blending  of  the  two  great  forces,  the 

1  Seebohm,  op.  cit.,  p.  369. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     87 

Christian  and  the  Pagan,  which  had  come  down  from 
the  classical  age. 

In  relation  to  these  great  movements,  then,  More  was 
a  decided  reactionaire.  He  opposed  the  Reformation 
because  he  believed  the  church  should  be  reformed 
from  within  and  not  from  without.  "The  next  agents 
were  the  Humanists  or  reformers  who,  like  More, 
Erasmus,  and  Colet,  were  content  to  reform  the  church 
from  within,  to  purge  away  the  grossness  that  had 
been  contracted  by  the  cunning  and  superstition  of 
long  ages  and  to  attempt  the  splendid  Utopia  of  a 
purified  church,  founded  along  the  old  lines,  with  a 
spiritual  Caesar  at  its  head  who  would  be  a  Christian 
Aurelius,  a  virtuous,  wise,  and  paternal  monarch  who 
might  counsel  and  guide  the  soul  of  a  regenerated 
Christendom." *  With  the  utmost  sincerity  More 
turned  his  attention  backward  toward  classic  models 
and  to  the  literature,  art,  and  manners  of  the  past.2 

7.  The  last  important  feature  here  noted  in  the  en- 
vironment of  More  is  the  decline  of  the  controlling  and 
regulating  influence  of  the  church.  For  long  centuries 
the  church  had  exercised  a  softening  influence  on  the 
lives,  actions,  and  ideas  of  men.  It  had  fostered  that 

1  Thorold  Rogers,  "  Six  Centuries  of  Work  and  Wages,"  London, 
1894,  pp.  382-383. 

1  Lilly,  " Renaissance  Types,"  p.  319.  Kautsky,  "Thomas  Morus 
und  seine  Utopie,  mit  einer  historischen  Einleitung,"  Internationale 
Bibliothek,  Vol.  5,  p.  24. 


88       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

spirit  of  asceticism  which  played  so  large  a  part  in  pre- 
serving the  peace  and  order  of  Europe.  It  had  con- 
stantly turned  men's  minds  from  the  material  to  the 
spiritual.  It  had  enjoined  men  to  lay  up  their  treasures 
in  heaven.  Under  this  influence  the  hold  on  property 
had  been  in  many  instances  weakened;  in  others 
abandoned.  The  spirit  of  Christian  charity  stood 
opposed  to  the  growing  pecuniary  spirit;  and  self- 
abnegation  to  selfishness.  For  centuries  the  church 
had  taught  men  to  deny  themselves  temporal  gains 
that  spiritual  blessings  might  be  secured.  It  had  in- 
culcated the  spirit  of  brotherly  love,  which,  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  did  much  to  soften  the  struggle  for  existence. 
Monastic  life,  though  perverted,  had  taught  its  lessons, 
and  through  canon  law  and  precept  had  checked  the 
spirit  of  rapacity.  Inequality  and  poverty  had,  in  the 
earlier  times,  not  the  power  to  arouse  the  unfortunate, 
nor  develop  unrest  into  revolution.  The  poor  were 
either  given  aid  to  alleviate  their  sufferings,  or  were, 
through  the  promises  and  consolations  of  religion,  rec- 
onciled to  their  lot. 

While  poverty  was  considered  a  blessing  and  self- 
denial  a  cardinal  virtue,  there  would  be  no  social  prob- 
lem nor  conflict  of  classes.  The  change  in  belief  came 
about  the  time  of  More.  It  was  induced  by  great 
transformations  in  the  industrial  world.  It  was  hast- 
ened by  the  influences  of  Humanism  and  of  southern 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     89 

culture.  When,  through  the  Reformation,  the  church 
lost  its  power  as  a  religious  force,  it  also  declined 
in  political  and  social  spheres.  "The  moral  suasion 
of  the  church  in  protesting  against  slavery,  in  securing 
the  weekly  rest  for  the  serf,  or  of  seeking  the  welfare  of 
the  pilgrim  was  no  longer  the  chief  factor  in  introducing 
improved  conditions  for  industry  and  trade."  1 

Many  evidences  might  be  given  of  the  decline  of  this 
ascetic  spirit  so  marked  in  the  later  Middle  Ages. 
The  teachings  of  John  Huss  in  Bohemia  furnish  the 
most  striking  illustration.  The  new  theory  showing 
itself  at  this  time  taught  that  poverty  was  an  unnatural 
condition ;  that  to  be  poor  was  a  misfortune ;  that  to 
produce  such  conditions  was  an  act  of  injustice  and 
oppression.  "  But  he  [Huss]  also  won  over  the  common 
people  by  preaching  that  the  goods  of  the  clergy  were 
the  goods  of  the  poor,  by  which  the  latter  ought  to  be 
maintained,  and  that  poverty  was  an  evil  only  tolerated 
by  God  and  for  which  the  wealthy  classes  were  respon- 
sible." 2  No  clearer  denial  of  the  old  doctrines  can  be 
found  than  the  teachings  of  Huss  in  Germany  and  no 
more  marked  expression  of  its  effects.  When  abnega- 
tion had  come  to  mean  only  a  duty  of  the  poorer  laymen 
while  the  opulent  clergy  grew  ever  richer;  when  the 

1  Cunningham,  op.  cit. 

3  "  Und  die  Kirche,  die  grosze  ausgleichende  Macht  friiherer  Zeit, 
war  unter  alien  habsiichtigen  Gewalten  die  erste."  Stern,  "Die  Soci- 
alisten  der  Reformationszeit,"  Berlin,  1883,  p.  6. 


90       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

clergy  had  ceased  to  be  shepherds  of  the  flocks  and  came 
to  be  wolves  to  devour  the  sheep ;  then  had  the  church 
itself  abandoned  its  earlier  pretensions  in  thought  and 
action  and  led  to  a  general  break  down  of  its  influence. 

In  England  near  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century 
occurred  the  famous  Peasants'  Revolt.  Many  causes 
have  been  given  of  their  ill-starred  attempt  at  revolution ; 
unjust  taxation  with  new  forms  of  discrimination, 
cruelty  in  collections,  and  kindred  abuses  seem  to  have 
helped  to  cause  the  uprising.  It  is  natural,  however, 
to  seek  a  theoretic  basis  for  this  as  for  other  social  revolu- 
tions. The  ideas  which  had  inspired  the  rebellion  both 
in  England  and  in  Germany  were  laid  at  the  door  of 
Wyclif.  Out  of  the  church  itself  came  these  revolu- 
tionary theories  and  they  were  not  of  an  economic  nature 
in  the  beginning.  They  began  rather  in  religious  hetero- 
doxy. "  We  can  readily  understand  how  Wyclif 's  adver- 
saries could  point  to  these  events  with  a  malicious  satis- 
faction, and  give  out  that  these  were  the  fruits  of  his 
destructive  opposition  to  the  doctrines  and  institutions 
of  the  church  and  especially  of  the  itinerant  preachers 
who  went  about  everywhere  stirring  up  the  people."  1 

As  a  result  of  this  decline  of  old  ideals  the  age  of 
More  was  marked  by  the  appearance  of  a  new  test  of 

1  Lechler,  "John  Wyclif  and  his  English  Precursors,"  London, 
1878,  Vol.  II,  p.  223.  Cf.  Kautsky,  "Communism  in  Central  Europe 
in  the  Time  of  the  Reformation,"  London,  1897,  p.  45. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  SOCIAL  UNREST  IN  ENGLAND     91 

welfare.  It  saw  a  rapid  growth  of  material  wealth  and 
well-being  and  the  multiplication  of  worldly  pleasures. 
This  spirit  is  quite  evident  in  "Utopia"  ;  it  can  be  seen 
in  other  writings ;  it  evidences  itself  in  the  laws  of  Eng- 
land in  the  period  of  the  Tudors  directed  against  luxury. 
"Material  prosperity  is  in  short  Machiavelli's  idea  of 
the  chief  conscious  basis  of  political  life  among  men. 
How  far  this  conception  is  from  that  of  the  ancient 
philosophers,  that  the  state  is  an  institution  devoted  to 
the  moral  and  intellectual  uplifting  of  the  community, 
and  from  the  mediaeval  notion  that  the  end  of  the  state 
is  primarily  to  smooth  men's  way  to  eternal  salvation, 
it  is  not  necessary  further  to  demonstrate."  * 

More's  "Utopia"  takes  this  same  view  of  life  and  of 
the  state.  In  this  it  typifies  later  socialism  which  con- 
templates the  conversion  of  the  state  into  an  economic 
and  industrial  agency.  It  is  hoped  that  industrial  con- 
ditions may  be  equalized  and  improved  through  this 
change.  This  means  to  transform  the  state  from  a 
political  and  civil  into  an  industrial  organism.  It  is  the 
realization  of  the  German  idea  to  change  the  police 
state  (Polizei-staat)  into  the  cultural  organization 
(Kultur-staat).  The  state  is  still  to  work  out  justice; 
but  under  the  conception  that  justice  and  injustice  are 
economic  and  not  civil  categories. 

1  Dunning,  "  History  of  Political  Theories,  Ancient  and  Mediaeval," 
N.  Y.,  1902,  p.  306. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE 

PART  I 

i.  The  "Utopia"  merits  careful  analysis  as  one  of 
the  earliest  expressions  of  the  consciousness  of  social 
wrong  and  a  complete  scheme  for  social  reorganiza- 
tion. It  contains  the  criticism  of  a  great  philosopher 
on  the  industrial  and  social  changes  marking  the  open- 
ing of  the  age  of  capitalism.1  It  is  a  commentary  on 
existing  society,  full  of  keen  criticism,  severe  satire,  and 
wise  suggestion.  No  clear  lines  are  drawn  between 
political  and  industrial  problems.  It  deals,  as  did  the 
works  of  Plato,  with  the  broad  problems  of  human 
welfare  and  the  best  means  to  their  solution.  The 
"Utopia" 2  is  a  clear  reflection  of  English  society  during 
the  period  of  the  great  Tudor  king.  More  makes  his 
arraignment  of  society  the  more  severe  by  throwing  it 
into  contrast  with  the  ideal  commonwealth  of  "Utopia." 
He  attacks  society  both  in  general  and  in  particular. 
He  condemns  those  institutions  from  which  seem  to 

1  Marx,  "Capital  "  ;  Aveling,  English  edition.  "  The  modern  history 
of  capital  dates  from  the  creation  in  the  sixteenth  century  of  a  world- 
embracing  commerce  and  a  world-embracing  market,"  p.  123. 

2  More,  "  Utopia."     References  are  made  to  edition  of  1878  by 
T.  F.  Dibdin,  Boston. 

92 


THE   SOCIAL  THEORIES   OF  SIR  THOMAS   MORE      93 

emanate  social  wrongs.  He  shows  the  evils  of  low 
wages  and  the  oppression  of  rich  employers.  He 
denies  property  rights  in  general  and  its  forms  of  money 
and  land  in  particular.  He  rebukes  the  ruling  class 
for  their  personal  laxity  and  for  their  severity  and  cruelty 
to  others.  Existing  conditions  deterrent  of  human  wel- 
fare are  condemned  whether  in  church,  state,  or  in 
society  at  large.  Under  the  transparent  garb  of  fiction, 
abuses  prevalent  then,  as  now,  he  bitterly  satirized. 
Certain  principles  of  social  and  political  theory  are  set 
forth  with  a  clearness  and  insight  which  make  much 
modern  criticism  seem  ancient. 

2.  The  work  on  "Utopia"  is  divided  into  two  parts, 
designated  as  Books  I  and  II.  The  first  part,  Book 
I,  is  relatively  short  and  is  introductory  to  the  major 
part  found  in  Book  II.  Its  purpose  is  largely  critical, 
though  it  abounds  in  suggestions  of  possible  reform  and 
has  many  references  to  the  land  of  Utopia,  set  forth  with 
great  skill,  with  the  view  to  awakening  interest  in  the 
constructive  material  to  follow  in  Book  II.  On  every 
page  is  revealed  the  consummate  skill  of  a  writer  attack- 
ing the  existing  institutions  of  an  intolerant  age  with 
all  the  latitude  it  permitted.  The  critical  or  destructive 
part  is  highly  practical  and  suggests  the  far-sighted 
statesman  and  keen  critic  rather  than  the  Utopian 
dreamer. 

The  second  or  constructive  part  of  the  work  is  of 


94       SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE   FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

necessity  more  theoretical  and  in  some  instances  pre- 
sents situations  highly  impractical  and  quite  incredible. 
This  is  natural,  as  it  is  in  their  positive  and  constructive 
plans  that  all  social  reformers  are  liable  to  the  severest 
criticism.  Rodbertus,  so  sane  and  practical  in  the  field 
of  criticism,  becomes  even  fantastic  in  some  of  the 
schemes  he  proposes.  In  the  last  of  his  economic 
letters  to  Von  Kirchmann  he  makes  predictions  and 
advances  ideas  which  ill  comport  with  the  credit  given 
him  as  the  father  of  scientific  socialism.  How  natural 
to  expect,  then,  in  the  writings  of  the  father  of  Utopian 
socialism,  plans  that  are  very  fanciful  and  which  tend 
to  shake  one's  faith  in  the  severe  sense  of  the  great 
Humanist. 

3.  As  has  been  stated,  one  of  the  largest  questions 
connected  with  the  early  stages  of  the  Industrial  Revo- 
lution concerned  the  Enclosures.  It  had  in  essence  to 
do  with  the  share  labor  was  to  get  in  the  process  of 
distribution.  Farming  was  to  many  a  laborer  simply 
a  by-industry.  A  source  of  revenue  was  thus  cut  off 
by  enclosures.  Moreover  the  revolution  was  silently 
effecting  other  great  changes,  with  one  social  class  — 
the  landlord-class;  it  was  lessening  their  income,  and 
this  in  favor  of  another  —  the  capitalist-class. 

To  this  matter  More,  in  the  beginning  of  "Utopia," 
addresses  himself.  He  sees  in  the  growth  of  sheep- 
culture  and  in  the  process  of  enclosures,  with  the  at- 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     95 

tendant  decrease  of  wages,  a  social  wrong,  an  economic 
error,  and  a  political  danger.  Nowhere  in  the  literature 
of  the  time  can  be  found  a  more  vivid  picture  of  the 
course  of  this  economic  movement  in  England  than  the 
following:  "Forsooth,  my  lord,  your  sheep  that  were 
wont  to  be  so  weak  and  tame  and  so  small  eaters ;  now 
as  I  hear  say  become  so  great  devourers  and  so  wild 
that  they  eat  up  and  swallow  down  the  very  men  them- 
selves. They  consume,  destroy,  and  devour  whole 
fields,  houses,  and  cities.  For  look  in  what  parts  of  the 
realm  doth  grow  the  finest  and  therefore  dearest  wool, 
there  noblemen  and  gentlemen  yea  and  certain  abbots, 
holy  men  no  doubt,  not  contenting  themselves  with  the 
yearly  revenues  and  profits  which  were  wont  to  grow 
to  their  fore-fathers  and  predecessors  of  their  lands, 
not  being  content  that  they  live  in  rest  and  pleasure  — 
nothing  profiting  —  yea  much  noying  the  weal-public 
—  lease  no  ground  for  tillage ;  they  pluck  down  towns 
and  leave  nothing  standing  but  only  the  church  to  be 
made  a  sheep-house."  1  Thus  More  sets  forth  one  of 
the  fruitful  causes  of  social  unrest  and  of  individual 
hardship.  He  condemns  in  bitter  terms  those  who, 
by  one  means  or  another,  drive  out  the  helpless  tenant 
and  laborer;  "when  men,  women,  husbands,  wives, 
fatherless  children,  widows,  woful  mothers  with  babes, 
and  the  whole  household  small  in  substance  but  great 

^'Utopia,"  p.  180. 


96       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

in  numbers"  are  driven  out  into  the  world  and  upon 
society,  without  means  of  maintenance  to  swell  the 
beggar  and  criminal  classes.  The  first  analysis  of 
the  problem  is  made  from  the  standpoint  of  the  menace 
arising  to  society  from  the  increase  of  the  criminal  and 
beggar  class. 

It  was,  in  fact,  from  this  social  standpoint  that  More 
considered  the  rapid  industrial  changes.  Not  only 
does  it  affect  the  civil  state  of  society,  but  also  bad 
economic  conditions  arise.  The  new  system  brought 
enlarged  profits  to  the  monopolists  and  More  saw  in  it 
an  evil  to  society  at  large.  "It  throws  many  men  out 
of  employment,  whom  no  man  will  set  to  work,  though 
they  never  so  willingly  proffer  themselves  thereto.  For 
one  shepherd  or  herdsman  is  enough  to  eat  up  that 
ground  with  cattle  to  the  occupying  whereof  about  hus- 
bandry many  hands  were  requisite."  l  More  sees  and 
sets  forth  what  in  a  later  period  so  many  writers 
and  opponents  of  the  machine  saw,  a  period  of 
transition  when  labor  was,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
displaced  and  made  to  suffer  until  readjustment 
brought  relief. 

In  More's  mind  the  industrial  progress  of  his  time  was 
a  foe  to  the  laboring  man.  The  enclosures  meant 
much  the  same  hardships  as  the  modern  expansion 
of  machinery.  Through  this  process  not  merely  was 

'"Utopia,"  p.  182. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     97 

common  land  taken  from  the  laborer,  thus  destroying 
a  lucrative  by-industry,  but  along  with  this  came  new 
methods  of  culture  under  which  more  land  could  be 
utilized  with  fewer  hands.  What  labor-saving  ma- 
chinery did  in  the  eighteenth-century  revolution,  the 
new  method  of  culture  did  in  agriculture  in  the  six- 
teenth century ;  it  displaced  labor,  decreased  wages,  and 
increased  profits  in  much  the  same  way.  The  less  im- 
portant changes  in  the  earlier  age  led  to  profits,  causing 
a  growth  of  capital  that  made  those  more  violent  changes 
possible.  This  period  sees  the  shifting  of  the  ad- 
vantage from  the  labor  class  —  from  the  side  of  the  em- 
ployed to  the  employer.1  Nor  was  this  loss  of  wages 
and  by-industry  the  only  one  noted  by  More.  He 
pointed  out  that  the  vast  economic  changes  had  brought 
about  changes  in  prices  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
laborer.  Rents  had  risen,  prices  of  commodities,  such 
as  food-stuffs,  had  also  advanced  since  sheep-culture 
had  cut  down  the  quantities  of  farm  produce. 

1  There  were  at  this  time  many  evictions  in  process.  The  rights 
of  landlords  to  evict  were  disputed.  The  evictions  went  on.  Fitz- 
herbert,  in  "Boke  of  Surveying,"  says:  "It  was  a  time  when  all  the 
land  enclosures  and  pastures  lay  open  and  unenclosed.  And  then 
was  their  tenements  much  better  chepe  than  may  be  now;  for  the 
most  part  the  lords  have  enclosed  a  great  part  of  their  waste  grounds 
and  straitened  their  tenants  in  their  commons  therein."  Noted  by 
Scrutton,  "Enclosures,"  p.  79;  cf.  Starkey,  "Dialogues";  Ashley, 
"Economic  History,"  Vol.  II,  p.  274;  Roscher,  " Geschichte  der  Na- 
tional Oekonomik  in  Deutschland,"  p.  123. 
H 


98       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

Monopoly  had  also  played  its  part  in  forcing  up  the 
price  of  wool;  this  tended  to  discourage  manufacture 
and  resulted  in  higher  prices  to  consumers.  Because 
of  this  there  was  a  breakdown  of  the  household 
industry  in  England.  "Yea,  besides  this  the  price 
of  wool  is  so  risen  that  poor  folks  that  were  wont  to 
work  it  and  make  cloth  thereof,  be  now  able  to  buy 
none  at  all  and  by  this  means  they  be  forced  to  forsake 
work  and  betake  themselves  to  idleness."  1  In  the 
light  of  the  modern  movements  against  the  gigantic 
trusts,  those  products  of  that  slow  evolution  since  the 
days  of  More,  these  protests  against  monopolies  and 
excessive  profits  are  of  great  interest.  More  was 
champion  of  the  laborer  and  the  small  holder  against 
the  spirit  of  monopoly. 

In  this  connection  More  attacks  what  he  con- 
siders as  social  dangers  arising  from  the  monopolist 
and  the  profit-taking  class.  Speaking  of  the  grow- 
ing custom  of  buying  and  selling  cattle  'for  gain,  he 
says,  "Thus  the  unreasonable  coveteousness  of  a  few 
hath  turned  that  thing  to  the  utter  undoing  of  your 
island  in  which  the  chief  felicity  of  your  island  doth 
consist." 2 

After  having  thus  at  length  set  forth  the  evils  resulting 
from  enclosures,  that  were  working  the  undoing  of 
old  English  society,  More  advises  the  interference  of 

'"Utopia,"  p.  182.  *Ibid.,  p.  183. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE       99 

the  government  to  avert  coming  disaster,  saying,  "  Cast 
out  these  pernicious  abominations;  make  a  law  that 
they  which  pluck  down  farms  and  towns  of  husbandry 
shall  reedify  them  or  else  yield  or  up-render  the  pos- 
session of  them  to  such  as  will  go  to  the  cost  of  building 
them  anew." 

At  the  same  time  a  similar  movement  was  on  foot  on 
the  Continent  against  the  industrial  changes  producing 
like  unfortunate  results  there.  Among  the  "Twelve 
articles  of  the  Peasants"  occurs  the  following:  "In  the 
tenth  place  we  are  aggrieved  by  the  appropriation  by 
individuals  of  meadows  and  fields  which  at  one  time 
belonged  to  the  community.  These  we  will  take 
again  in  our  own  hands.  It  may,  however,  happen  that 
the  land  was  rightfully  purchased.  When,  however, 
the  land  has  been  unfortunately  purchased  in  this  way, 
some  brotherly  arrangement  should  be  made  according 
to  circumstances."  1  This  conservative  though  firm 
protest  was  made  against  the  same  evil  appearing  in 
Germany  in  1525.  There  was  an  uprising  against  the 
oppression  growing  out  of  the  great  economic  changes 
which  were  beginning  everywhere  to  show  themselves. 
Against  these  economic  movements  writers  of  the  time 
thought  to  oppose  the  force  of  legislation.  With  what 

Pennsylvania,  "Translations  and  Reprints,"  Vol.  II,  p.  23;  see 
also,  Berens,  "The  Digger  Movement,"  etc.,  where  the  "Twelve 
Articles"  are  found. 


100     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

success  the  development  of  enclosures  in  England  too 
well  shows.1 

4.  As  has  been  pointed  out  the  age  of  More  saw  the 
growth  of  a  new  economic  force  —  the  growth  of 
monopolies.  To  the  danger  of  this  new  feature  he  was 
not  blind.  He  approached  monopolies,  their  evils 
and  abuses,  from  the  laborers'  standpoint.  The  in- 
terests of  the  latter  were  put  in  jeopardy  through  the 
operation  of  forestallers,  monopolists,  and  those  who 
strive  for  large  pecuniary  gains.  He  said:  "Suffer  not 
these  rich  men  to  buy  up  all,  to  engross  and  forestall 
and  with  their  monopoly  to  keep  the  market  alone  as  it 
please  them.  Let  not  so  many  be  brought  to  idleness. 
.  .  .  Let  cloth- making  be  renewed  that  there  may 
be  honest  labors  for  this  idle  sort  to  pass  their  time  in 
profitably,  which  hitherto  either  poverty  has  caused  to 
be  thieves  or  else  now  be  either  vagabonds  or  idle 
serving-men  and  shortly  will  be  thieves."  2  This  type 
of  monopoly  included  what  may  be  called  the  com- 
mercial capitalist. 

Equally  pernicious  was  the  land-holding  monopoly. 
He  held  this  landlord-class  as  idlers,  contributing 
nothing,  but  living  like  parasites  from  the  social  income. 

1  On  Enclosures,  see  Fitzherbert,  "Boke  of  Surveying,"  1567; 
Edward  Lord  Herbert,  "Life  and  Reign  of  Henry  VIII";  Lord 
Bacon,  "History  of  Henry  VII." 

'"Utopia,"  p.  188. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     IQI 

Later  he  would  have  said  they  lived  from  the  "unearned 
increment."  A  history  of  the  changes  in  language 
would  account  for  many  so-called  social  changes.  He 
calls  these  idle  members  "dorrers."  "They  are  an 
idle  class  who  live  from  the  labor  of  those  who  toil." 
Karl  Marx  would  have  said  they  live  from  the  "  sur- 
plus-value" taken  from  the  laborer.  He  adds:  "First 
there  is  a  great  number  of  gentlemen  which  cannot  be 
content  to  live  idle  themselves  like  dorrers,  of  that  which 
others  have  labored  —  their  tenants  I  mean ;  whom 
they  poll  and  shave  to  the  quick  by  raising  their  rents." 

With  bitter  sarcasm  he  attacks  those  idle  gentlemen 
who  support  and  keep  a  great  class  of  "retainers  and 
loitering  serving-men."  He  sees  the  problem  of  the 
non-productive  laborer  with  the  clearness  of  Adam 
Smith;  he  condemns  this  class  with  the  severity  of 
Karl  Marx.  Out  of  this  class  of  retainers  he  claimed 
the  number  of  vagrants  was  supplied.  They  never 
leam  any  trade  and  hence  are  of  no  social  service.  As 
a  result,  there  arises  a  large  class  who  are  ill-fed,  poorly 
clad,  idle,  and  tradeless,  given  to  a  wandering  life,  a 
menace  to  society,  and  a  danger  to  the  state;  a  class 
rapidly  increasing  in  the  England  of  More's  time  and 
not  unlike  the  modern  class  of  "tramps." 

5.  Directly  in  connection  with  the  discussion  of  the 
social  disorders  arising  from  these  industrial  changes  is 
found  More's  scathing  denunciation  of  the  manner  of 


IO2      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

dealing  with  the  criminal  classes.  As  is  the  case  with 
most  socialists,  More  viewed  crime  as  a  result  of  poverty 
and  the  criminal  a  direct  product  of  unhealthy  social 
conditions.  "There  in  the  mean  season  they  that  be 
thus  destitute  of  service  either  starve  for  hunger  or  turn 
manfully  thieves;  for  what  would  you  have  them  to 
do?"  The  humanism  of  More  comes  out  nowhere 
clearer  than  in  his  treatment  of  the  subject  of  crime. 
In  his  ideas  upon  this  subject  of  such  vital  importance 
he  was  three  centuries  ahead  of  his  time. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  here  to  recount  those  facts,  so 
well  known,  dealing  with  the  condition  of  criminal 
law  then  in  vogue  in  England.  The  simplest  offences 
received  the  extreme  penalty,  and  the  law  of  procedure 
was  such  as  to  permit  conviction  upon  the  most  specious 
evidence.  It  is  probably  true  that  with  the  full  dis- 
cussion of  the  growth  of  civil  law  in  England  the  vast 
importance  of  the  changes  in  criminal  law  and  procedure 
have  been  overlooked.  At  the  threshold  of  this  reform, 
which  began  with  those  statutes  and  customs  providing 
for  capital  punishment  for  over  two  hundred  offences, 
and  ran  throughout  the  whole  range  of  criminal  pro- 
cedure—  at  the  threshold  of  this  reform  stands  Sir 
Thomas  More. 

He  protested,  as  has  been  said,  against  the  infliction 
of  the  capital  penalty  because  he  denied  responsibility 
to  those  to  whom  social  conditions  left  no  choice.  He 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     103 

also  opposed  it  upon  the  more  practical  grounds  that  it 
was  insufficient  to  prevent  crimes.  "Neither  is  there 
any  punishment  so  horrible  which  can  keep  them  from 
stealing  which  have  none  other  craft  whereby  to  get 
their  living.  For  great  and  horrible  punishment  be 
appointed  for  thieves ;  whereas  much  rather  provision 
should  have  been  made,  that  there  were  some  means 
whereby  they  might  get  their  living.  So  that  no  man 
might  be  driven  to  the  extreme  necessity  —  first  to 
steal  and  then  to  die." 

This  contains  the  kernel  of  all  the  later  socialist  pro- 
tests against  severe  punishment  and  is  a  short  but  clear 
statement  of  the  irresponsibility  of  the  criminal.  More 
treated  the  criminal  as  a  product  of  unfortunate  social 
environment,  a  theory  made  so  much  of  and  discussed  in 
a  later  chapter.  He  considered  that  cruel  and  indis- 
criminate punishment  as  practised  in  England  was  not 
only  morally  wrong,  but  was  useless  and  could  not  check 
crime,  so  long  as  the  cause  of  crime  lay  so  largely 
in  maladjustment.  The  foremost  task  was  social  re- 
construction and  for  this  More  makes  provision  in 
"Utopia." 

Examination  of  the  conditions  in  England  at  this 
time  shows  that  the  most  frequent  crimes  were  those 
against  property;  those  against  the  person  were  rela- 
tively rare.  Theft  was  the  offence  for  which  most  con- 
victions stood.  It  is  further  true  that  the  laborers  were 


IO4     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

those,  who,  through  existing  conditions,  were  most  often 
compelled  to  steal.  Frequently  out  of  work  and  driven 
from  the  stabler  condition  of  manorial  life,  they  took 
up  thieving  as  a  vocation.  Against  this  class,  then, 
laws  severe  and  unrelenting  were  executed.  More 
advances  radical  reforms  for  this  unfortunate  class. 

This  brings  up  one  of  the  most  rational  and  best 
supported  claims  of  communism — the  claim  that  crimes 
against  property  lead  to  the  worst  and  most  numerous 
infractions  of  social  order ;  and  that,  with  private  prop- 
erty abandoned,  these  disturbances  would  disappear. 
To  this  general  theory  More  committed  himself  most 
clearly.  For  him  private  property  had  no  sacredness 
and  hence  cruel  punishment  for  theft  was  immoral. 
"Surely,  My  Lords,  I  think  it  is  not  right  nor  justice 
that  the  loss  of  money  should  cause  the  loss  of  a 
man's  life;  for  mine  opinion  is  that  all  the  goods  in 
the  world  are  not  able  to  countervail  man's  life."  1 

More  denies  to  government  the  right  to  take  life. 
This  idea  was  later  taken  up  and  defended  upon  the 
theory  of  the  social  contract.  As  an  illustration  Joseph 
de  Maistre  has  shown  that  as  governments  are  em- 
powered by  the  members  of  society,  each  surrendering 
certain  rights,  it  is  insupportable  that  the  members  of 
society  ever  gave  up  their  right  to  life,  —  a  prop- 
osition which  the  theory  of  capital  punishment  in- 

1  "  Utopia,"  p.  189. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     105 

volves.1  However  specious  such  an  argument  may  seem, 
it  shows  what  interesting  purposes  the  contract  theory 
served.  While  More  did  not  state  the  case  so  clearly,  he 
questioned  both  the  morality  and  the  utility  of  capital 
punishment. 

6.  More  passes  from  a  discussion  of  the  individual 
aspects  of  crime  and  poverty  to  a  consideration  of  war 
and  peace  and  national  defence.  Generally  speaking, 
socialists  have  opposed  the  army  and  navy.  It  has  been 
customary  to  condemn  them  as  an  enemy  of  labor,  a 
burden  to  the  poorer  classes,  and  the  stronghold  and 
defender  of  the  aristocracy.  Strange  to  say,  More, 
though  a  monarchist,  takes  the  same  view.  Though  he 
says :  "Soldiers  may  be  made  out  of  thieves  and  stand- 
ing armies  may  make  room  for  idle  labor  as  is  seen 
in  France,"  yet  he  criticises  the  army  as  a  menace  to 
peace,  as  a  useless  maintenance  of  idle  men  by  the  labor- 
ing population,  and  as  generally  useless  and  ineffective. 
He  condemns  war  as  a  social  loss  and  the  army  as  an 
idle,  luxurious  class  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  frugal 
laborers.  Drawing  from  the  conditions  in  "Utopia," 
the  example  of  the  king  abandoning  war  for  internal 
improvements,  he  suggests  the  need  of  the  nations 
limiting  the  expenditure  for  armament.2 

^ee    Baudrillart,    "Publicistes   modernes,"  Paris,    1863,  Ch.  3, 
for  a  discussion  of  the  theory  of  De  Maistre. 
3  "Utopia.,"  pp.  215-216. 


106      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

7.  More  finally  reaches  the  radical  and  distinctive 
part  of  his  social  criticism  —  that  touching  private 
property.  The  safety  of  the  commonwealth  must  not 
be  despaired  of.  There  is  yet  a  solution  for  the  social 
and  political  problems.  The  remedy  is  to  be  found  in 
the  displacement  of  private  by  public  property.  "How- 
beit,  Master  More  (to  speak  truly  as  my  mind  giveth 
me),  where  possessions  be  private,  where  money  beareth 
all  the  stroke;  it  is  hard  and  almost  impossible  that 
there  the  weal-public  be  justly  governed  and  prosper- 
ously flourish;  that  justice  is  there  executed  where  all 
things  come  into  the  hands  of  evil  men;  or  that  pros- 
perity there  flourishes  where  all  is  divided  among  the 
few;  which  few  do  not  lead  their  lives  very  wealthily, 
while  the  rest  live  miserably,  wretchedly,  and  beggarly." l 
There  remains  little  doubt  that  More  has  the  England  of 
his  day  in  mind.  That  he  believed  that  many  of  the 
evils  of  his  day  were  augmented  by  private  property 
seems  equally  certain.  The  relation  of  his  opposition 
to  enclosures  and  his  general  theory  of  communism 
seem  also  very  close.  Conditions  of  social  equality 
he  believed  could  be  realized  alone  through  equality 
of  property  which  in  turn  demanded  a  system  of  com- 
munism. The  system  of  private  property  produced 
only  monopoly  and  the  inequality  and  oppression  at- 
tendant upon  it.  So  the  general  remedy  set  forth  by 
'"Utopia,"  p.  221. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF   SIR  THOMAS   MORE      Id? 

More  was  equality  of  goods  attainable  alone  through 
a  vast  enlargement  of  social  control.1 

PART  II 

1.  The  description  of  the  Island  of  Utopia  contains, 
in  the  transparent  guise  of   fiction,  the  political  and 
social  theories  of  Thomas  More.    After  the  first  part 
of  destructive  criticism  follows  the  constructive  part 
outlining  those  conditions  under  which  he  believed  a 
peaceful,  progressive,  and  prosperous  society  could  exist. 
The  suggestions  are  not  numerous  nor  does  his  plan 
seem  workable;    they  are,  however,  valuable  as  illus- 
trating the  most  advanced  social  thought  of  his  age  and 
as  being  the  serious  observations  of  the  greatest  scholar 
of  sixteenth-century  England. 

His  social  scheme  has  as  its  basis  the  establishment  of 
public  control  over  property  and  the  consequent  aban- 
donment of  many  features  found  with  this  institution. 
It  is  this  adoption  of  public  control  as  a  panacea  for 
all  social  ills  that  connects  More's  thinking  with  early 
communism ;  while  parts  of  his  plan,  made  necessary  by 
this  course,  are  of  vital  interest  to  modern  socialism. 

2.  As  has  been  intimated  the  right  of  private  property 
has  been   more   or   less  important  in  different  eras. 
According  as  it  vitally  affects  the  problems  of  home- 
life,  the  family,  social  and  industrial  organization,  and 

1 "  Utopia,"  p.  222. 


108      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

social  and  political  structure,  will  its  presence  be  held 
as  essential  to  social  order,  to  progress,  and  to  civil- 
ization. 

It  is  a  fact  quite  natural  and  obvious,  though  diffi- 
cult of  demonstration,  that  the  right  of  private  property 
has  grown  in  sacredness  and  importance  since  the  down- 
fall of  feudalism.  One  of  the  most  striking  characteris- 
tics of  this  period  has  been  the  growth  of  individualism ; 
in  fact  this  may  be  described  as  the  line  along  which 
progress  has  moved.  The  progress  of  this  spirit  has 
been  seen  as  the  individual  has  gained  possession  of 
certain  powers  and  privileges.  He  has  gained  rights 
to  freedom  of  contract  and  also  of  a  political  nature. 
The  most  important  phase  of  this  development  has 
been  the  remarkable  expansion  of  the  individual  as  an 
industrial  or  economic  unit.  Of  the  types  of  individ- 
ualism of  Luther  in  the  realm  of  religion,  of  Bacon  in 
philosophy,  of  Rousseau  in  politics  —  none  is  more  im- 
portant than  that  described  by  Adam  Smith.  Against 
none  has  developed  a  more  persistent  opposition.  As 
has  been  remarked,  socialism  is  a  protest  against  the 
overdevelopment  of  individualism;  communism  is  op- 
posed to  that  particular  aspect  which  has  to  do  with 
private  property. 

To  properly  understand  the  theory  of  More,  it  is 
necessary  to  remember  that  property  is  only  an  historical 
category,  and  the  term  means  something  very  different 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     109 

at  different  times.  The  sacredness  of  property  has 
been  much  greater  at  one  time  than  at  another;  for 
the  importance  of  any  institution  varies  with  the  age 
and  with  the  demands  made  upon  it.  Private  property, 
no  doubt,  meant  much  less  to  the  England  of  the  six- 
teenth century  than  it  means  to  culture  in  the  nine- 
teenth; by  the  drift  of  events  the  right  of  private 
property  will  be  much  less  sacred  and  inviolable  in  the 
century  to  come. 

The  period  of  More  was  one  of  transition  from 
mediaeval  conditions  of  property-holding  to  that  of  an 
age  of  extreme  individualism.  This  change  gradually 
took  place  in  England,  and  property  as  an  institution, 
defended  by  jurists  and  protected  by  law,  grew  con- 
stantly more  sacred;  and  an  economic  system  built 
upon  the  basis  of  private  property  came  to  make  it 
the  corner-stone  of  civilization.  Not  until  individualism 
developed  did  private  property  assume  its  supreme 
importance ;  it  then  became  the  basis  of  modern  social 
order. 

Under  such  conditions  private  property  rests  upon  a 
twofold  justification, — the  natural  rights  theory  of  the 
individualistic  school  and  upon  social  utility.  The  age 
of  More  saw  neither  of  these  theories  highly  developed ; 
as  will  be  shown  in  a  following  chapter,  both  doctrines 
were  advanced  and  defended  by  later  writers.  The 
modern  times  have  seen  the  theory  of  natural  rights  in 


110      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

property  much  shaken ;  and  the  property- right  and  the 
extent  to  which  it  shall  be  carried  must  now  stand  the 
social  utility  test.  More  made  his  attack  on  private 
property,  when,  not  only  to  him  but  to  others  of  his 
age,  it  was  working  the  ruin  of  old  English  society 
and  threatening  the  peace  and  order  of  the  common- 
wealth. In  other  words,  he  condemns  private  property 
for  its  social  disutility.  A  study  of  the  treatment  of 
property-holders  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  clearly 
teaches  that  did  such  an  attitude  exist  to-day,  it  would 
seem  most  dangerous  to  conservative  minds,  and  it 
would  be  rank  heresy  to  the  modern  jurist.  To  Thomas 
More  such  was  not  the  case,  and  his  communism  was  a 
conservative  rather  than  a  radical  measure. 

3.  There  seems  therefore  nothing  unusual  in  the 
theory  of  a  society  based  upon  common  property.  It 
is  set  forth  in  his  description  of  Utopia  in  a  matter- 
of-fact  manner.  .  .  .  "Though  they  carry  nothing 
with  them  yet  they  lack  nothing  in  all  their  journey ; 
for  wherever  they  come  they  be  at  home." 

The  many  outgrowths  of  this  principle  More  clearly 
recognized.  He  appreciates  that  important  economic 
motives  spring  from  the  property-right.  He  admits 
the  system  of  common  property  would  lack  some  of 
these  motives.  "Yet  they  take  no  care  at  all  for  the 
living  and  wealth  of  themselves,  and  all  theirs,  of  their 
wives  and  children,  their  nephews  and  children's 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     III 

children  and  all  the  succession  that  shall  follow  in  their 
posterity."  l  More  does  not  seem  to  realize,  however, 
that  this  meant  an  enormous  loss  of  economic  motive 
which  is  one  of  the  most  important  assets  of  any  society. 
He  seemed  to  think  there  would  be  no  diminished  prod- 
uct. "And  yet  besides  there  is  no  less  provision  for 
them  that  were  once  laborers  and  be  now  weak  and  im- 
potent, than  for  them  that  do  labor  and  take  pain." 
"And  though  no  man  has  anything  yet  every  man  is 
rich ;  for  what  can  be  more  rich  than  to  live  joyful  and 
merrily."  2 

The  chief  advantage  to  arise  from  common  property 
is  a  solution  of  a  problem  long  discussed  by  social  and 
political  reformers  —  the  reconciliation  of  public  and 
private  interests.  How  is  a  commonwealth  to  prosper  ? 
By  being  so  organized  that  the  general  and  particular 
interests  will  coincide.  How  can  this  be  done?  By 
abandoning  private  property  and  making  the  interests 
of  the  commonwealth  conform  to  those  of  the  individuals 
composing  it ;  by  absorbing  the  individual  interests  in 
the  general  welfare. 

Of  all  the  principles  More  sets  forth,  this  is  the  most 
important  and  shows  the  breadth  of  his  mind.  "Here 
where  nothing  is  private  the  common  affairs  be  earnestly 
looked  upon.  For  in  other  places  they  speak  still  of 
the  commonwealth ;  but  every  man  procureth  his  own 
1 "  Utopia,"  p.  368.  2  Ibid.,  p.  368. 


112      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

private  gain.  For  in  other  countries  who  knoweth  that 
he  shall  starve  for  hunger  unless  he  make  several  pro- 
vision for  himself,  though  the  commonwealth  itself 
flourish  never  so  much  in  riches.  And  therefore  he  is 
compelled  even  of  very  necessity  to  have  regard  to 
himself  rather  than  to  the  people ;  that  is  to  say,  others."  * 
According  to  More,  then,  common  property  alone  will 
secure  a  mutuality  of  interests,  and  hence  make  a  real 
commonwealth.  Common  property  must  be  the  basis 
of  a  commonwealth. 

4.  There  is  one  particular  of  very  great  importance 
in  which  More  differs  from  writers  of  his  class;  i.e. 
his  attitude  toward  the  family.  Plato,  his  classic 
prototype,  advocated  not  merely  communism  of  prop- 
erty, but  defended  communal  relationships  in  family 
life.  He  abandoned  the  family  as  a  unit  of  social  or- 
ganization, believing  it  unwise  to  thrust  a  minor  unit 
between  the  individual  and  the  state  or  the  politically 
organized  society.  In  this,  as  in  other  respects,  More 
does  not  follow  his  great  master.  Though  he  advocates 
a  system  of  industrial  society  based  upon  communism,  he 
preserved  the  family  as  the  basis  of  social  organization. 
With  most  communist  writers  from  Plato  down  to 
modern  times,  the  family  has  been  held  as  the  comple- 
ment of  property  and  the  fate  of  one  determined  that  of 
the  other.  The  family  has  been  held  as  the  bulwark 
»  "  Utopia,"  p.  367. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS   MORE     113 

of  private  property,  and  property  the  bond  of  family 
unity.  They  have,  therefore,  held  that  the  abandon- 
ment of  property  meant  the  destruction  of  the  family. 
To  this  extreme  More  did  not  go. 

5.  Within  the  limits  of  a  communistic  society  More 
had  some  interesting  plans  for  social  organization. 
He  treats,  as  writers  from  the  time  of  Plato  have  done, 
of  the  division  of  labor.  This  he  discusses  from  two 
view  points.  In  his  artificially  constructed  society 
direction  is  given  the  labor-supply  through  the  means 
of  education.  "Besides  husbandry  which  (as  I  have 
said)  is  common  to  them  all,  every  one  of  them  learneth 
one  or  other  several  science  as  his  own  proper  craft." 
After  an  enumeration  of  the  crafts,  he  continues :  "But 
of  these  aforesaid  crafts  every  man  learneth  one;  and 
not  only  the  men  but  also  the  women."  * 

His  attitude  toward  the  subject  differs  from  that  of 
Plato.  Plato  insisted  on  the  division  of  labor.  His 
idea  was,  however,  based  upon  a  political  necessity. 
For  with  Plato,  the  end  of  the  state  was  justice ;  and  as 
this  consists  in  giving  to  each  his  due,  and  as  this 
applied  to  industrial  life,  it  therefore  seemed  necessary 
that  there  be  an  enforced  division  of  occupation  so  that 
each  will  stay  in  his  own  sphere  and  not  encroach  on 
his  neighbor.  The  realization  of  the  ends  of  the  state 
in  justice  was  conditioned  according  to  Plato  largely 

1  "  Utopia,"  pp.  247,  248. 


114     SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

upon  economic  relationships,  a  decidedly  modern 
socialistic  proposition.  More,  on  the  other  hand,  em- 
phasized the  industrial  and  not  the  political  aspects. 

Greater  latitude  is  allowed  by  More.  His  ideal  state 
does  not  so  completely  absorb  the  individual  as  does 
Plato's.  There  is  a  small  area  of  individuality  left 
undisturbed  by  the  social  dictator.  In  More's  scheme 
each  was  supposed  to  follow  one  trade,  and  that  gen- 
erally the  trade  of  his  father.  Under  the  guidance  of 
the  government,  however,  there  might  be  more  than  one 
trade  learned  and  practised.  "Yea,  and  any  person 
after  he  hath  learned  one  craft  be  desirous  to  learn 
another  he  is  likewise  suffered  and  permitted.  When  he 
hath  learned  both,  he  occupieth  whether  he  will  unless 
the  city  hath  more  need  of  one  than  the  other."  l 

Thus,  More  does  not  treat  the  division  of  labor  in  the 
narrow  and  technical  manner  of  Adam  Smith.  He  was 
rather  interested  in  the  broader  aspects.  In  the  social 
scheme  of  Plato  division  of  labor  was  to  underlie  social 
unity.  It  was  largely  to  take  the  place  of  property  as  a 
basis  for  that  unity.  The  interdependence  of  the  social 
classes  was  to  be  maintained  through  division  of  labor, 
and  social  unity  and  harmony  secured.2  The  Church 
Fathers  also  shared  this  theory,  and  to  More  it  was  one 
of  the  important  phases  of  the  problem. 

1  "  Utopia,"  pp.  248,  249. 

1  Franck,  "Communism  jug6  par  Phistoire,"  p.  21. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS   MORE     115 

More  discussed  division  of  labor  as  between  men  and 
women  based  upon  the  fitness  of  the  different  sexes. 
"But  the  women,  as  the  weaker  sort,  be  put  to  the 
easier  crafts  as  to  work  at  wool  or  flax."  In  the  earlier, 
as  in  the  later,  culture  women  are  occupied  at  the 
textile  industries. 

As  to  the  best  form  of  industrial  organization  More 
makes  little  mention.  In  the  textile  industry  he  seems 
to  have  known  only  the  household  type.  Speaking  of 
the  influence  of  fashion  on  the  market,  he  says:  "As 
for  the  garments  every  family  maketh  its  own."  During 
the  life  of  More  the  household  method  was  breaking 
down  in  England,  and  the  transition  to  the  domestic 
system  was  marked  by  those  hardships  More  thought 
should  in  some  way  be  mitigated.  The  chief  cause 
More  assigned  for  the  difficulties  in  the  old  system  was 
the  high  price  of  raw  materials.  In  his  attitude  toward 
this  older  system  may  be  seen  More's  conservatism. 
His  devotion  to  the  older  form  of  industrial  organiza- 
tion, to  the  communal  control  of  land,  and  to  the  mo- 
nogamus  family  —  all  show  his  reactionary  policy  and 
free  him  from  the  charge  of  undue  radicalism. 

6.  In  his  treatment  of  the  length  of  the  labor-day  lies 
More's  most  distinctive  socialistic  feature,  and  this  con- 
stitutes his  clearest  contribution  to  ideas  of  reform  in 
favor  of  the  laboring  man.  In  this  part  of  his  discussion 
he  seems  most  modern ;  indeed,  his  statements  on  this 


Il6     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

question  might  have  come  from  a  labor- congress  of  yes- 
terday. The  general  statements  on  this  question  have 
been  passed  along,  and  the  arguments  to  sustain  this 
position  have  scarcely  been  excelled.  True,  he  did  not 
discuss  the  surplus-value  arising  from  the  long  labor- 
day,  as  did  Marx ;  he  does  not  clearly  point  out  the  ex- 
ploitation of  the  laborer  by  the  employer,  as  does  the 
modern  socialist;  he  has,  however,  suggested  strongly 
these  very  things. 

After  discussing  the  unfortunate  condition  of  labor 
because  of  long  hours,  More  says:  "For  this  is  worse 
than  the  wretched  and  miserable  condition  of  bonds- 
men; which  is  nevertheless  nearly  everywhere  the  life 
of  workmen  and  artificers  saving  in  Utopia.  For  they 
dividing  the  day  and  night  into  twenty-four  hours,  ap- 
point and  assign  only  six  of  those  for  work ;  three  before 
noon  upon  which  they  go  straight  to  dinner,  when  they 
have  rested  two  hours  upon  that  they  go  to  supper."  * 
With  keen  observation  More  saw  that  the  excessive  toil 
of  the  new  industrial  system,  though  still  young,  meant 
mental  and  physical  injury  to  labor  and  called  for  re- 
form. One  could  imagine  he  was  reading  the  report 
of  an  English  industrial  commission  during  the  first 
quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

More's  reasons  for  shorter  hours  show  his  apprecia- 
tion of  the  needs  of  labor,  being  only  tardily  recognized 

>"  Utopia,"  p.  249. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     117 

to-day.  The  time  gained  by  the  laborer  was  to  be 
devoted  to  study,  to  attendance  on  lectures,  and  to 
healthy  recreation.  He  insisted  that  the  leisure  time 
be  devoted  to  useful  exercises,  else  riot,  idleness,  and 
slothfulness  would  result  in  greater  harm  to  the  laborer. 
More  advocated  the  short  day  that  labor  might  be 
saved  from  debasing  drudgery,  and  the  laborer  be 
given  opportunity  for  culture  and  for  self-improve- 
ment. 

The  vulnerable  points  in  the  contention  for  the  short 
day  are  seen  by  More  and  to  some  extent  defended. 
The  most  apparent  and  valid  objection  is  that  the  short 
day  would  result  in  a  lessening  of  the  output.  This  has 
been  an  objection  waged  not  alone  against  the  short- 
day  propaganda,  but  against  the  entire  socialistic 
scheme.  If  the  capitalistic  system  is  the  most  pro- 
ductive form  of  industry,  then  any  change  in  a  socialistic 
direction  must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  lead  to  a 
scarcity  of  commodity. 

There  are  in  More's  scheme  three  features  to  be 
noticed  in  this  connection.  There  is  provision  made  for 
compulsory  and  hence  almost  universal  labor.  No 
place  for  a  leisure  class  is  found  in  the  plan  presented. 
There  were  to  be  no  idlers  in  his  society,  no  drones  in 
the  hive,  no  non-productive  labor.  All  able-bodied 
persons  must  engage  in  useful  occupation.  The  les- 
sening of  the  product,  therefore,  resulting  from  shorter 


Il8      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

days  would  be  compensated  by  the  industry  of  the 
idlers. 

This  is  just  what  the  modern  advocates  of  the  eight- 
hour  day  argue;  the  existing  industries  would  absorb 
the  idle  labor  and  thus  more  fairly  distribute  the  bur- 
dens. It  is  possible  by  more  widely  distributing  the 
existing  labor-force  to  lessen  the  toil  for  each  by  pro- 
viding a  place  for  all.  Women,  More  would  put  to 
work.  Visitors  must  labor  if  they  stay  longer  than  a 
day;  "he  hath  no  meat  given  him  till  he  hath  wrought 
out  his  forenoon's  task;  ...  In  Utopia  they  utterly 
forsake  and  eschew  idleness ;  thinking  felicity  after  this 
life  to  be  gotten  and  obtained  by  busy  labors  and  good 
exercises."  * 

The  second  compensatory  feature  in  More's  scheme 
is  the  employment  of  women  and  of  the  great  body  of 
clericals.  These,  he  believes,  would  serve  society  better 
if  they  engaged  in  labor.  "  Besides  how  great  and  how 
idle  a  company  there  is  of  priests  and  religious  men  as 
they  call  them;  put  thereto  all  rich  men,  especially  all 
landed  men,  which  generally  be  called  gentlemen  and 
noblemen;  take  unto  this  number  their  servants;  join 
to  them  also  all  sturdy  beggars  cloaking  their  idle  life 
under  some  disease  or  sickness;"  2  put  all  these  to  la- 
bor, and  no  lack  of  product  will  be  experienced.  "The 
rest  of  the  people  being  neither  idle  nor  occupied  with 

1 "  Utopia,"  p.  355.  J  Ibid.,  pp.  250-252. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     119 

unprofitable  exercise,  it  may  be  easily  judged  in  how 
few  hours  how  much  good  work  may  be  done  and  dis- 
patched towards  those  things  that  I  have  spoken  of." 1 
This  is  a  clear  statement  of  the  productive  possibility 
of  a  society  where  all  uniformly  toil.  More  answers 
theoretically  this  objection  to  the  short  day. 

In  this  connection  there  very  naturally  arises  the 
question  of  what  constitutes  productive  effort.  This 
leads  to  an  examination  of  the  theory  of  More  as  to 
the  content  of  the  term  "wealth,"  which,  after  all, 
determines  the  definition  of  the  term  "productive  la- 
bor." This  is  not  clearly  expressed  by  More,  though 
his  meaning  is  clear.  Labor  is  to  be  called  productive 
which  increases  material  goods  and  hence  material  wel- 
fare. In  certain  phrases  this  is  made  quite  evident. 
Those  are  classed  as  idle  who  are  caring  for  the  spirit- 
ual needs.  The  governors  are  not  merely  active  in 
civil  life,  but  they  do  add  to  the  material  wealth.  He 
urges  that  the  material  goods  answering  primary  needs 
are  more  easily  produced.  The  "Utopia"  teaches  that 
the  supply  of  the  primary  wants  can  be  readily  met 
with  plenty  for  all. 

The  problem  of  plenty  is  met  not  by  increasing 
output,  but  by  reducing  the  wants.  This  is  a  simple 
formula  and  popular  with  socialists.  It  would  cer- 
tainly help  to  solve  the  problem  of  relative  poverty 

1 "  Utopia,"  p.  252. 


120      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

which  is,  after  all,  the  chief  problem  faced  either  by 
socialism,  by  social  reform,  or  by  philanthropy,  emo- 
tional or  philosophic. 

More's  idea  of  wealth  is  that  of  the  mercantilists,  — 
not  money,  but  useful  material  goods  answering  pri- 
mary wants.  Wants  based  upon  desire  for  distinction 
did  not  exist  in  Utopia.  There  was  no  pecuniary  spirit. 
Value  in  use  was  the  sole  quality  of  goods.  There  were 
no  fictitious  or  artificial  values.  There  was  no  energy 
lost  in  the  strife  of  competition.  Wants  thus  simpli- 
fied were  supplied  cheaply.  In  one  sentence  he  de- 
scribes not  only  the  ideal  world  of  his  thought,  but  the 
unrealized  dream  of  socialism:  "Wherefore  seeing 
they  all  be  exercised  in  profitable  occupations  and  that 
few  artificers  in  the  same  craft  be  sufficient;  this  is 
the  cause  that  plenty  of  all  things  be  among  them."  * 

There  is  one  other  feature  hi  More's  teaching  perti- 
nent to  this  discussion,  dealing  with  the  deeper  philoso- 
phy of  the  great  humanist.  A  new  set  of  motives  are 
revealed  by  his  study  of  his  imaginative  society.  In  the 
society  he  described,  the  myth  of  the  "economic  man" 
would  not  be  valuable  even  for  analogy.  The  pecun- 
iary motive  so  dominant  in  our  age  is  there  lacking. 
The  desire  for  distinction  in  the  possession  and  display 
of  material  wealth  does  not  move  men.  A  new  set  of 
motives  comes  into  play ;  a  new  idea  of  pleasure  becomes 

1 "  Utopia,"  p.  255. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE     121 

dominant.  More  teaches  a  theory  prominent  in  Eng- 
land from  Robert  Owen  to  William  Morris  and  Ruskin. 
In  this  respect  he  more  nearly  coincides  with  the 
idealism  of  Plato  which  is  so  far  removed  from  one 
school  of  modern  materialistic  socialism.  A  quotation 
will  show  his  thought:  "They  embrace  chiefly  the 
pleasures  of  mind  for  them  they  count  the  chiefest  and 
most  principal  of  all."  "For  why  in  the  institution  of 
the  weal-public  this  end  is  only  pretended  and  minded  — 
that  what  time  may  possibly  be  spared  from  the  neces- 
sary occupations  and  affairs  of  the  commonwealth  — 
all  that  the  citizens  should  withdraw  from  the  bodily 
service  to  the  free  liberty  of  the  mind  and  the  garnish- 
ing of  the  same;  for  here  they  suppose  the  felicity  of 
the  life  to  consist."  l  It  will  thus  be  seen  his  doctrine 
of  pleasure  is  closely  related  to  his  proposed  solution 
of  the  social  problems. 

7.  This  being  true,  a  glance  at  his  theory  of  pleasure 
and  pain  is  probably  justified.  It  has  been  already 
pointed  out  that,  as  a  humanist,  in  sympathy  with  the 
New  Learning,  More  had  already  repudiated  many  of 
the  sterner,  ascetic  notions  characteristic  of  the  clergy 
of  his  day.  On  the  other  hand,  his  moderation  kept  him 
from  the  excesses  which  had  begun  to  show  themselves 
in  higher  English  life. 

On  his  theory  of  pleasure  one  writer  says:   "The 

1 "  Utopia,"  p.  255. 


122      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

author  takes  the  side  of  Epicurus  in  this  controversy, 
who  considered  happiness  in  itself  and  in  its  formal 
state  and  not  according  to  its  relation  to  external  beings ; 
and  in  this  view  he  asserted  the  felicity  of  man  consisted 
in  pleasure."  l  That  More  was  an  Epicurean  in  his 
teaching,  seems  not  so  clear.  He  seems  rather  to  be  a 
follower  of  Plato  in  this  regard.  He  does  give  rather  a 
large  place  to  pleasure  as  an  end,  but  it  is  pleasure  of  a 
high  order.  "But  now,  Sir,  they  do  not  hold  felicity 
to  rest  in  all  pleasure  but  only  in  that  pleasure  that  is 
good  and  honest  and  that  hereto  as  to  perfect  blessed- 
ness our  nature  is  allured  and  drawn  as  by  virtue, 
whereto  only  they  that  be  of  a  contrary  opinion  do 
attribute  felicity." 2  With  bitter  satire  he  refers  to 
those  who,  with  perverted  tastes,  follow  pleasures  at 
once  costly  and  unsatisfying. 

More  has  not  given  any  very  clear  theory  of  consump- 
tion, but  he  has  perhaps  made  as  suggestive  statements 
as  any  early  writer.  Pleasure  is  the  end  of  life ;  but 
pleasure  in  the  sense  taught  by  Plato.  Pleasure  is  to 
be  sought  by  the  individual,  but  only  of  a  kind  that  will 
not  harm  the  commonweal.  Pleasures  arising  from 
unnatural  desires,  vanity,  etc.,  are  harmful  to  society 
and  must  be  avoided.  He  rebukes  with  severity  many 
of  the  cruel  and  wasteful  practices  of  his  time.  Hunting 
for  sport  is  not  only  cruel  and  uneconomical,  it  is  an 

1 "  Utopia,"  p.  283.     (Notes  by  the  editor,  Dibdin.)     J  Ibid.,  p.  284. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS   MORE     123 

unnatural  sport.  This,  More  says,  the  Utopians  leave 
to  the  butchers. 

8.  More  does  not  distinguish  clearly  between  the 
forms  of  social  and  civil  organization.  This  lack  of 
differentiation  shows  his  crudeness,  and  its  later  ap- 
pearance marks  the  evolution  of  the  scientific  mind. 
This  is  not  at  all  peculiar  to  More  as  such  an  instance 
as  Locke's  "Two  Treatises  of  Government,"  written 
much  later,  clearly  shows.  He  does,  however,  ap- 
preciate certain  facts  in  the  study  of  social  structure 
made  much  of  by  the  modern  sociologists ;  as,  when  he 
points  out  that  in  Utopia  the  wife  goes  into  the  home 
of  the  husband. 

Besides  the  unity  growing  out  of  division  of  labor, 
More  looked  to  the  family  and  family  relationships  to 
lend  solidarity  to  the  social  group.  "The  wives  be 
ministers  to  their  husbands,  the  children  to  the  parents, 
to  be  short,  the  younger  to  their  elders."  l 

Into  the  management  of  the  family  was  introduced 
a  large  element  of  state  control.  The  family  life  was 
to  be  controlled,  as  in  Sparta,  that  a  strong  offspring 
might  come  to  the  state.  This  had  to  do  with  the 
nature  and  number  of  children  brought  forth.2  More 

llbid.,  p.  258. 

2  "  But  to  the  intent  the  prescribed  number  of  citizens  should  neither 
decrease  nor  increase  beyond  measure :  it  is  ordained  that  no  family 
.  .  .  shall  have  fewer  children  of  the  age  of  fourteen  or  thereabouts 
than  ten  or  more  than  sixteen."  —  Ibid.,  p.  256. 


124      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

saw,  what  too  few  social  reformers  have  been  either 
wise  enough  or  bold  enough  to  advocate,  viz.,  that  the 
social  problem  has  chiefly  to  do  with  the  increase  of 
population,  seen  from  these  two  view  points.  With 
statistics  More  did  not  deal ;  and  statistical  analysis  had 
to  wait  for  the  treatises  of  Malthus  and  his  associates.1 

The  family,  according  to  More,  must  not  be  left  to 
the  regulation  of  the  contracting  parties;  such  control 
must  be  enforced  as  will  save  society  against  hereditary 
degeneracy.  He  treats  marriage  as  one  of  the  most  sa- 
cred and  important  relationships,  which  the  state  should 
regulate.  That  care  should  be  taken  in  the  propaga- 
tion of  the  lower  animal  species,  while  that  of  the  human 
species  is  left  to  chance,  caprice,  and  blind  sentiment, 
seems  absurd.  The  law  of  natural  selection  must  be 
supplemented  or  supplanted  by  statutory  enactment. 
Progress  must  be  a  reasoned  process,  and  the  rational 
element  must  enter  into  sexual  choice.  This  feature 
of  his  social  scheme  was  advanced  by  Plato  and  has 
been  incorporated  into  many  later  works.2 

More  clearly  recognized  the  dangers  of  overpopula- 
tion. He  thinks  overpopulation  possible  within  certain 

1  Cf.  Stangeland,  "  Pre-Malthusian  Doctrines  of  Population," 
N.Y.,  1904,  p.  95. 

'Bacon,  "New  Atlantis";  Campanella,  "City of  the  Sun,"  etc.; 
Soetbeer,  "  Die  Stellung  der  Sozialisten  zur  Malthus'schen  Bevolker- 
ungslehre,"  Berlin,  1886,  is  an  interesting  discussion  of  this  prob- 
lem. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE       12$ 

population  groups,  which  was  really  the  contention 
of  Malthus.  He  did  see,  however,  what  Malthus 
seems  to  have  overlooked;  i.e.  the  local  nature  of  the 
problem.  More  laid  much  emphasis  on  the  possible 
relief  through  emigration.  He  calls  special  attention 
to  this  aspect  of  the  case,  an  idea  likely  suggested  by 
the  westward  movements  of  population  in  that  age  of 
discovery.  In  the  chapter  on  domestic  relations  he  sets 
this  forth  as  a  remedy,  and  has  no  fear  of  a  general  con- 
gestion of  population. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  interesting  to  glance  at 
some  of  the  main  facts  in  the  discussion.  Nitti  re- 
marks: "Before  Malthus  the  economic  theorists  had 
not  studied  the  question  of  population  at  all  or  had 
assumed  that  the  duty  of  the  sovereigns  and  states 
consisted  in  procuring  the  increase  of  population  by 
every  means  within  their  power."  1  The  attitude  here 
set  forth  really  dates  from  Bacon,  who  in  his  essays 
clearly  holds  to  the  need  of  increasing  the  population.2 
The  view  is  urged,  however,  when  there  had  been  for 
many  reasons  a  great  dispersion  of  population,  especially 
after  the  new  military  methods  introduced  by  Crdcy 
and  Agincourt. 

Moreover,  the  mercantile  theory,  emphasizing  as  it 
did  the  need  of  national  power  and  arousing  the  local 

1  Nitti,  "Population  and  the  Social  System,"  London,  1894,  p.  2. 
1  Bacon,  "Essays,"  edition  of  1806,  p.  136. 


126      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE   FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

pride  and  jealousy,  favored  all  schemes  by  which  the 
greatness  of  a  nation  could  be  augmented.1  The  theory, 
then,  that  demanded  an  increase  of  population,  rested 
upon  a  consideration  of  national,  rather  than  of  in- 
dividual, interests.  Opposition  to  the  growth  of  popu- 
lation appears  as  mercantilism  declines  and  eighteenth- 
century  individualism  expresses  itself  in  concrete  social 
theories.  Overpopulation  is  not  therefore  a  socialist 
doctrine,  and  these  writers  from  More  down  have  been 
in  favor  of  an  increased  population.2 

9.  In  no  part  of  his  social  criticism  is  More  so  drastic 
as  in  his  attack  on  money,  with  which  he  associates 
luxury.  In  his  treatment  of  the  evils  of  money  he 
clearly  foreshadows  the  more  modern  socialism.  His 
theory  was  in  direct  antagonism  to  the  doctrines  of  mer- 
cantilism soon  to  dominate  English  economic  thinking. 
His  teachings  on  money  are  specially  clear  and  sound. 
"In  the  meantime,  gold  and  silver,  whereof  money 
is  made,  they  do  so  use,  as  none  of  them  do  so  esteem 
it  than  the  very  nature  of  the  thing  [deserved."  The 
money  metals  he  placed  far  below  iron  in  the  scale 
of  values.  His  statement  of  the  case  is  strikingly 
similar  to  that  of  Ricardo.  "Whereas  to  gold  and 

1  Frederick  le  Grand,  "CEuvres,"  Vol.  IV,  p.  4-6;  Filangieri, 
"La  Scienza  della  Legislazione  de  Cittadino,"  Genoa,  1798;  Vol.  i, 
p.  263  et.  seq.;  Nitti,  op.  cit.,  pp.  i-io. 

a  Cf.  Stangeland,  op.  cit.,  p.  104. 


THE   SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS   MORE       I2/ 

silver  nature  has  given  no  use  that  we  may  not  lack,  if 
that  the  folly  of  men  had  not  set  it  in  higher  estimation 
for  its  rareness  sake.  But  of  the  contrary  part,  nature 
as  a  kind  and  tender  Mother  hath  placed  the  best  and 
necessary  things  open  abroad  as  air,  water  and  the 
earth  itself;  and  hath  removed  and  hid  from  us  vain 
and  unprofitable  things."  * 

His  attack  on  the  precious  metals  is  very  severe. 
Gold  in  Utopia  is  used  for  vile  purposes.  Men  make 
gyves  of  it  for  slaves,  and  criminals  wear  gold  rings  for 
punishment.  Gold  ornaments  are  a  mark  of  child- 
hood, and  when  grown,  they  cast  them  away  as  they 
would  dolls  and  puppets.  In  most  instructive  com- 
parison to  the  craze  for  the  precious  metals  stands  this 
telling  satire  against  the  exaggerated  idea  of  the  value 
of  gold  and  silver  and  a  plea  for  consideration  for  goods 
of  primary  value. 

The  evils  arising  from  the  presence  of  money  More  sets 
forth  at  the  close  of  his  work.  Much  of  the  occasion 
for  theft,  envy,  and  ambition  is  banished  with  money. 
"When  money  dieth,  much  of  the  cause  of  crime  is 
vanished."  Money  leads  to  speculation ;  men  buy  and 
keep  grain  for  pecuniary  purposes  while  the  people 
hunger.  "This  same  worthy  princess,  Lady  Money," 
he  calls  the  one  who  so  effectually  shuts  the  way  between 
us  and  our  living.  "She  (pride  growing  out  of  money) 

1  "Utopia,"  p.  274. 


128      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

measureth  not  wealth  and  prosperity  by  her  own  com- 
modities, but  by  the  misery  and  incommodities  of 
others."  l 

10.  But  one  point  remains  in  the  theories  of  More. 
In  common  with  most  social  teachers  he  deals  with  the 
city-state  as  the  most  perfect  form  of  organization. 
This  was  natural,  for  as  a  student  of  Plato  he  had  the 
Greek  city-state  before  his  mind.  The  city  republic 
of  Plato,  the  ideal  city  of  Saint  Augustine,  the  city  of 
Machiavelli,  and  the  City  of  the  Sun  of  Campanella  — 
all  show  how  popular  this  concept  has  been. 

There  are  certain  characteristic  features  of  the  city 
fitted  to  the  scheme  of  More.  The  city-state  makes 
necessary  a  narrow  control  over  the  details  of  every  day 
life,  too  familiar  to  need  mention.  The  very  conditions 
of  municipal  life  lead  naturally  toward  extensive  social 
control  which  is,  as  has  been  contended,  the  chief 
feature  of  socialism.  This  is  true  as  exemplified  in  the 
Greek  cities;  it  is  also  illustrated  in  the  modern  ten- 
dency toward  municipal  socialism.  The  city  presents 
the  conventional  in  life  typified  in  Utopia  by  a  condition 
of  extreme  physical  order  in  construction  of  streets, 
houses,  etc.,  which  was  but  a  counterpart  of  that  me- 
chanical accuracy  with  which  social  life  was  supposed  to 
operate.  The  control,  therefore,  in  Utopia  was  marked 
by  that  precision,  that  unbending  consistency  and  con- 

1 "  Utopia,"  p.  371. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS  MORE       129 

formity,  so  common  in  socialistic  and  communistic 
schemes.  In  this  attempt  to  escape  industrial  anarchy 
they  reach  despotism,  and  in  the  struggle  for  equality 
and  conformity  crush  all  spontaneity  and  eliminate 
liberty.  Thus,  there  is  an  attempt  by  More  to  reach 
equality.  He  makes  no  pretensions  at  liberty. 

Like  all  humanists,  More  was  an  advocate  of  absolute 
monarchy.  He  was  a  worshipper  of  the  "Prince." 
His  pattern  was  the  absolute  monarchs  of  the  Tudor 
House,  and  he  does  not  depart  from  the  type.  He  placed 
a  strong  personal  ruler  at  the  head  of  his  system  as 
most  writers  from  Machiavelli  to  the  Revolution  have 
done.  There  was  in  this  perfect  social  system  the  no- 
tion of  absolutism;  it  had  only  a  slight  democratic 
element  in  it.  He  advocated  what  was  later  the  con- 
servative idea  that  the  king  should  be  chosen  by  the 
people.  More  differs,  however,  in  this  important  par- 
ticular from  Machiavelli;  his  prince  exists  and  rules 
for  the  people;  as  much  can  hardly  be  said  for  the 
"Prince"  of  the  great  Italian. 

ii.  The  socialism  of  More,  then,  if  it  is  to  be  so 
called,  is  to  be  understood  in  its  broadest  sense.  It 
means  a  struggle  by  the  social  classes  for  admission  to 
the  enjoyment  of  all  the  benefits  offered,  as  society 
makes  progress  along  various  lines.  It  involves  that 
view  of  society  which  sees  in  the  laboring  man  more 
than  a  "hand."  It  considers  that  all  members  of 


130       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

society,  whether  toiling  with  brain,  or  soul,  or  hand  are 
endowed  with  high  capacities  and  possessed  of  the 
right  to  enter  into  the  heritage  of  a  larger,  richer  civili- 
zation. More  conceives  of  the  man  who  labors  as  a 
being  with  brain  and  mind  as  well  as  with  brawn 
and  muscle,  and  plans  to  develop  these  higher 
powers. 

As  one  of  the  most  brilliant  and  influential  represen- 
tatives of  humanism  and  of  the  new  culture,  More  saw 
the  need  of  a  vertical  as  well  as  of  a  horizontal  move- 
ment of  the  New  Learning.  Kept  for  centuries  in 
those  upper  zones  where  wealth  and  nobility  move, 
it  could  never  work  out  the  high  ideals  entertained  by 
Thomas  More,  until  the  nineteenth-century  Renais- 
sance gave  it  that  vertical  tendency  toward  the  lower 
areas  of  life.  More  must  be  viewed  as  forecasting  that 
modern  socialist  propaganda,  in  which  labor  asks 
opportunity  in  this  larger  culture  with  its  varied 
expressions  in  education,  literature,  politics,  and 
art. 

Slowly  have  the  lower  classes,  following  the  aspira- 
tions of  More,  made  progress  in  these  lines.  At  first 
labor  demanded  the  right  to  "subsistence";  this  was 
met  with  miserable  degrading  laws.  It  next  demanded 
the  right  to  earn  its  subsistence,  summed  up  in  the 
phrase  "the  right  to  labor."  Later  it  comes  to  stipulate 
those  conditions  under  which  this  labor  shall  be  done. 


THE  SOCIAL  THEORIES  OF  SIR  THOMAS   MORE      131 

Gradually  the  laborer  comes  to  participate  in  the  higher 
powers,  duties,  and  privileges  of  active  citizenship  and 
assumes  new  civic  relationships.  To-day  socialism  in 
its  best  expression  demands  a  still  larger  enjoyment 
by  the  lower  classes  of  the  benefits  of  general  culture. 


CHAPTER   IV 

LIFE  AND  TIMES   OF  CAMPANELLA 

i.  With  the  study  of  Campanella  the  field  is  changed 
from  north  to  south,  from  England  to  Italy,  from  Ger- 
manic to  Romance  culture.  The  appearance  of  social 
discontent  and  anti-social  theories  seems  perfectly 
natural  among  southern  peoples,  and  especially  in  Italy 
where  the  Revival  of  Learning  started  theorizing  on  other 
lines,  and  where  the  capitalistic  regime  showed  itself 
quite  early.1  There  certainly  existed  conditions  favor- 
able to  social  upheaval,  and  the  Italian  character 
seemed  fitted  thereto.  There  appears,  however,  very 
slight  agitation  and  very  little  literature  bearing  on  social 
questions  in  Romance  lands.  The  northern  countries 
stimulated  at  once  by  the  two  great  movements,  the 
Renaissance  and  the  Reformation,  had  witnessed  up- 
risings and  had  produced  some  literature  and  social 
theories  more  or  less  revolutionary.  Italy,  during  this 
time,  seems  not  to  have  taken  much  part  in  this  senti- 
ment of  social  disorder. 

For  a  long  time  a  calm  had  marked  the  social  life  of 
Italy.  Away  back  in  the  latter  part  of  the  thirteenth 

1  Janssen,  "  History  of  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the  Middle 
Ages,"  St.  Louis,  1900,  Vol.  II,  Ch.  I.  Cf.  Labriola,  op.  tit.,  p.  153. 

13* 


LIFE  AND  TIMES   OF  CAMPANELLA  133 

century  one  bold  character  had  dared  to  revolt  against 
the  petty  but  effective  despotism  of  one  of  the  republics.1 
Arnold  of  Brescia  for  some  time  scattered  the  seeds  of 
social  discontent  in  Milan,  where  was  reaped  the  usual 
harvest  of  disorder  and  riot.  As  is  usual,  Arnold  was 
led  to  attack  property  by  a  scandalous  abuse  of  its 
power  by  one  class  and  he  developed  rather  a  complete 
scheme  of  communism.  Aroused  by  the  power  or 
abuse  of  power  in  the  hands  of  the  church,  he  bitterly 
attacked  the  landed  clergy,  as  was  done  so  much  later 
in  France  and  England.  The  disaffection  spread,  and 
war  was  waged  not  only  against  property  but  also 
against  its  kindred  institutions.  This  movement  was 
soon  checked,  however,  and  little  came  of  the  agitation 
for  a  cause  for  which  its  leader  gave  up  his  life. 

There  is,  moreover,  a  general  paucity  of  literature  for 
a  century  following  Thomas  More,  for  which  several 
explanations  are  offered.  One  of  importance  is  the 
fact  that  so  disastrous  had  been  the  attempts  at  social 
reform  in  northern  Europe  that  the  cause  seemed 
hopeless,  and  radical  agitators  were  stamped  as  enemies 
of  state,  church,  and  of  civilization  itself.2  This  con- 
clusion seemed  justified  by  the  history  of  Lollardy, 

1  Ibid.,  p.  29. 

1  Kirchenheim,  "L'Eternelle  Utopia,"  Paris,  1897,  p.  83.  Cf. 
Berens,  "The  Digger  Movement,"  etc.,  p.  n;  also  Kautsky,  "Com- 
munism," pp.  29  et  seq. 


134      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

the  Hussite  movement  in"  Bohemia,  and  kindred  up- 
risings. It  is  also  true  that  great  religious  questions 
came  to  occupy  people's  minds,  and  abstract  principles 
and  even  questions  of  scientific  method  came  to  the 
front,  while  the  idealist  and  reformer  were  less  pat- 
ronized. With  the  opening  of  the  seventeenth  century 
the  interest  in  social  questions  revived,  and  considerable 
literature  was  published.  Of  this  the  most  interesting 
and  important  came  from  the  pen  of  the  Calabrian 
monk,  Thomas  Campanella. 

2.  Very  little  attention  has  been  paid  to  Campanella 
by  English  students,  and  accounts  in  English  of  his  life 
and  work  are  very  meagre  and  unsatisfactory.  His 
works  have,  however,  been  quite  fully  treated  by  foreign 
critics.  Owing  to  this  paucity  of  English  literature 
treating  his  life  and  works,  a  rather  extended  notice  of 
authorities  seems  justifiable.  Among  the  works  from 
his  pen  those  dealing  with  the  social  problem  are: 
"City  of  the  Sun,"  which  probably  first  appeared  in 
1619,  almost  exactly  a  century  after  the  "Utopia"  by 
Thomas  More;  and  his  "Discourses  touching  the 
Spanish  Monarchy,"  published  about ^1599.  The  date  is 
somewhat  in  dispute,  though  it  seems  highly  probable 
that  it  appeared  shortly  before  the  death  of  Elizabeth 
in  England.  The  "Realistic  Philosophy,"  Part  IV, 
was  probably  written  while  the  author  was  in  prison 
and  published  at  an  uncertain  date  afterward. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  135 

There  is  quite  an  extensive  literature  of  a  biographical 
and  critical  nature.  So  many-sided  was  his  culture  and 
so  far-reaching  were  his  teachings  that  the  life  of  the 
learned  monk  called  forth  extensive  criticism  in  various 
tongues.  Among  these  may  be  cited  the  treatise  by 
Andrea  Calenda,  "Thomas  Campanella  and  his  Social 
and  Political  Doctrines  bearing  upon  Modern  Social- 
ism." l  On  the  philosophy  of  Campanella  the  short 
work  by  Sante  Felici,  "The  Philosophical  and  Religious 
Doctrines  of  Campanella,"  is  very  satisfactory.2  On 
his  biography  the  work  of  Baldacchini,  "Vita  e  filosofia 
di  Tommaso  Campanella,"  should  be  consulted. 
Luigi  Amabile  of  Naples  has  written  a  very  extensive 
treatise  of  his  life,  but  it  is  cumbrous  and  tedious.3 
Shorter  notices  appear  in  such  works  as  those  of  Adolphe 
Franck4  and  Von  Mohl.5  The  place  of  Campanella 
has  been  discussed  by  Paul  Laf  argue ; fl  and  very 
briefly  by  Kleinwachter.7 

3.    It  is  perhaps  a  result  of  a  chauvinistic  spirit  that 

1  Calenda,  "  Fra  Tommaso  Campanella  e  la  sua  Dottrina  Sociale  e 
Politica  di  Fronte  al  Socialismo  Moderno,"  1895. 

2  "  Le  Dottrine  Filosofico-religiose  di  Tommaso  Campanella,  con 
particolare  riguardo  alia  filosofia  della  rinascenza  Italiana." 

1 "  Fra  Tommaso  Campanella  la  sua  congiura  i  suoi  processi  e  la 
sua  pazzia, "  etc.,  Naples,  1882. 

4  "  Re'formateurs  et  publicistes  de  1'Europe,"  1881. 

'  Op.  cit. 

•  "Die  Vorlaufer  des  neueren  Socialismus,"  pp.  469-506. 

7  "Die  Staatsromane,"  Wien,  1891. 


136      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

each  nation  sees  in  its  writers  and  critics  the  forerun- 
ners of  great  movements  and  the  originators  of  wise 
social  schemes.  Such  a  case  is  seen  when  Guizot  states 
with  an  interesting  air  of  assurance  that  every  great 
idea  has  either  originated  in  France  or  passed  through 
the  French  to  the  world.  A  certain  element  of  this 
spirit  probably  inspires  those  writers  who  claim  for 
Campanella  a  very  large  place  in  the  history  of  the  in- 
cipient stages  of  socialism.  The  claim  seems,  however, 
to  have  a  very  good  justification  in  fact.  Campanella, 
monk,  philosopher,  communist,  and  revolutionist,  made 
a  very  substantial  contribution  to  the  early  thought  of 
socialism.1  He  is  not  important  because  of  the  quantity 
he  wrote;  his  works  are  marked  by  commendable 
brevity.  Analysis  shows,  however,  that  his  social 
theories  and  economic  views  are  far-reaching  and  sug- 
gestive.3 

Campanella  was  born,  according  to  the  most  reliable 
biographers,  in  1568  in  the  little  village  of  Stillo,  in 
Calabria.3  Educated  for  orders,  in  the  declining  days 

1  Calenda,  op.  cit.,  Preface. 

1  The  value  of  the  Italian  critics  concerning  Campanella  has  been 
questioned  by  Croce.  That  modern  socialists  look  upon  Cam- 
panella as  their  "Homer"  is,  of  course,  an  exaggeration.  Lafargue 
also  comes  in  for  his  share  of  the  criticism.  See  Croce,  "MateYia- 
lism  Historique  et  Economic  Marxiste,"  Paris,  1901,  pp.  270  et  seq. 

3  Calenda,  op  cit.,  p.  4 ;  Colet,  "  CEuvres  choisies,"  p.  2,  Franck, 
op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  p.  151. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  137 

of  scholasticism,  he  was  early  noted  for  his  power  as  a 
philosopher,  and  it  is  in  this  sphere  he  is  best  known. 
It  was  during  the  period  of  struggle  then  in  progress 
against  the  ancient  Aristotelian  philosophy  that  Cam- 
panella  gained  his  reputation  as  a  scholar  and  as  a  great 
philosophic  controversialist.1 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  take  a  glance  at  the  intellectual 
environment  of  the  man.  He  was  born  at  the  close  of 
the  life  of  Bruno,  far-famed  for  having  anticipated  the 
theories  of  Galileo,  who  also  was  advanced  in  life  while 
Campanella  was  in  childhood.  Telesius,  whose  disciple 
and  defender  he  became,  died  before  Campanella 
reached  manhood.  Francis  Bacon,  who  seemed  not  to 
have  known  him,  was  seven  years  his  senior.  Bodin 
wrote  his  six  "Livres  de  la  Re*publique"  while  the 
monk's  character  was  in  the  making,  and  Grotius  was  a 
contemporary  with  this  brilliant  group  of  political  and 
social  philosophers.  The  work  of  the  noted  chemist 
and  founder  of  the  science  of  Medicine,  Paracelsus, 
appeared  shortly  before  the  social  theorizing  of  Cam- 
panella began.  Of  the  place  of  Italy  at  this  time  it  is 
only  necessary  to  note  that  five  of  the  greatest  scholars 
of  Europe  are  Italians  —  Cardanus,  Telesius,  Patritius, 
Bruno,  and  the  Calabrian  monk,  Campanella.2 

1  Calenda,  op.  cit.,  p.  62. 

1  Rixner,  "  Leben  und  Lehrmeinungen  Beriihmter  Physiker," 
1829;  "Einleitung." 


138      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

Campanella's  first  great  inspiration  was  Telesius,  in 
whose  defence  he  made  those  speeches  on  which  his 
fame  rests  and  which  enhanced  the  reputation  of  his 
client.  It  is  said  that  while  Antonia  Marta  consumed 
seven  years  writing  a  book  against  Telesius,  Campanella 
occupied  but  seven  months  in  destroying  it.  Cam- 
panella's works  were  highly  theoretical.  Many  of  the 
writings  of  a  similar  nature  during  this  period  partake 
of  a  more  scientific  spirit.  Bodin  has  been  classified 
in  much  the  same  school  as  Campanella  and  has  even 
been  called  very  idealistic  and  Utopian.  He  saw, 
however,  the  difference  between  his  method  and  that  of 
Campanella  and  More,  declaring  that  he  was  not  deal- 
ing with  an  imaginary  commonwealth,  as  Thomas 
More  had  done.1  Campanella,  then,  may  be  called  the 
most  idealistic  and  Utopian  of  this  learned  group;  he 
is  more  positively  a  social  reformer  than  the  others. 
He  had,  however,  sound  judgment  on  social  and 
political  affairs  corresponding  somewhat  to  Harrington, 
the  premises  of  both  men  being  very  sane. 

A  study  of  this  many-sided  man  reveals  a  strange 
life  —  a  virtual  paradox.  An  orthodox  Catholic  and  a 
devoted  monk,  he  was  a  worshipper  of  the  stars  and 

1  "Republic,"  Bk.  I,  p.  3;  cf.  Sudre,  "Histoire  du  Communisme"; 
Baudrillart,  "Tableaux  des  Theories  Politiques,"  etc.,  pp.  24  el  seq.; 
Gierke,  "Althusius,"  pp.  151,  152  (ed.  1880);  Bluntschli,  "Histoire 
du  droit  publique." 


LIFE  AND  TIMES   OF  CAMPANELLA  139 

placed  astrology  above  his  religion.  Himself  violently 
persecuted,  his  theories  make  no  provision  for  liberty, 
nor  is  he  a  friend  of  toleration.  A  forerunner  of  the 
rational  method  in  physical  science,  he  was  super- 
stitious in  religion  and  fanciful  in  his  social  theories. 
Although  he  lived  an  isolated  monk  in  the  cloister  or  a 
martyr  in  the  cell  he  advanced  a  form  of  social  organi- 
zation which  most  clearly  abandons  individualism. 
Apparently  a  free-thinker,  he  was  yet  a  slave  to  the 
traditions  and  ceremonies  of  the  past. 

There  are  some  very  interesting  points  of  contrast 
between  More  and  Campanella.  Both  were  determined 
for  orders,  but  More  returned  to  public  life  and  the 
law,  while  Campanella  took  to  the  cloister.  Both  were 
devoted  Catholics.  More,  however,  espoused  the  New 
Learning  and  was  a  devoted  follower  of  Aristotle; 
Campanella,  also  versed  in  classic  lore,  revolted  against 
Greek  philosophy  and  became  its  bitterest  enemy  and 
most  feared  opponent.  More  was  a  marked  conserva- 
tive and  on  the  side  of  order ;  Campanella  was  a  radical 
and  a  revolutionary  and  suffered  for  his  course.  Cam- 
panella suffered  twenty-six  years  of  martyrdom  for 
his  radicalism;  More  went  to  the  scaffold  for  his 
conservatism.  More  favored  an  absolute  monarchy 
with  the  people  having  a  kind  of  king-making  power; 
Campanella  favored  a  republic,  though,  of  course,  of  the 
Italian  pattern.  Campanella  was  an  agitator,  believed 


140     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

he  could  upset  the  power  of  Spain,  destroy  the  existing 
social  order,  and  create  a  republic ; l  More  was  an 
advocate  of  the  Tudor  monarchy.  More  resembled 
Karl  Marx;  Campanella  was  an  early  Lassalle.2  The 
only  hope  of  More  was  a  return  to  the  earlier  and 
simpler  life  he  saw  daily  passing  farther  away;  for 
Campanella  the  new  seventeenth  century,  with  its 
eventful  opening,  was  to  be  the  dawn  of  a  new  age  of 
social  regeneration.3 

Campanella  differs  from  More  in  this,  that  he  ad- 
hered more  persistently  to  national  ideals;  he  was 
struggling  for  the  independence  of  the  Italian  states,  but 
with  the  larger  purpose  of  their  national  unity;  More 
was  willing  to  return  to  a  more  decentralized  form  of 
social  organization.  Both  were  spurred  on  by  a 
knowledge  of  the  evil  conditions  of  their  times.  The 
aspect,  however,  more  apparent  to  Campanella  was  the 
political ;  that  which  impressed  More  was  the  economic 
or  social. 

This  very  decided  difference  in  view  point  must  be 
noted.  More  was  led  to  his  discussion  by  a  study  of  the 
economic  and  social  conditions.  In  these  he  saw  con- 
tradictions and  flagrant  wrongs.  Campanella,  and,  it 

1  Lafargue,  "Le  Devenir  Social,"  Vol.  I,  p.  312. 

2  Conner,  "The  Social  Philosophy  of  Rodbertus,"  London,  1899, 
pp.  5  et  seq. 

8Sigwart,  "Kleine  Schriften,"  Freiburg,  1889,  Band  I,  p.  138. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  141 

may  be  added,  the  Jesuits  and  the  English  radicals,  go 
out  chiefly  from  the  religious  or  the  religious-political 
point  of  view.  They  are  therefore  more  largely  political 
than  social  or  economic  reformers.1 

As  has  been  said  the  writings  of  Campanella  bearing 
upon  social  questions  were  very  limited  in  quantity. 
His  purely  philosophical  works  were  far  more  extensive. 
As  in  the  case  of  More  the  social  and  political  environ- 
ment gave  force  and  direction  to  his  literary  works 
touching  political  and  social  matters.  These  consist, 
as  is  the  case  with  most  social  reformers,  of  two 
widely  differing  kinds.  His  imaginative  tendency  was, 
as  in  the  case  of  Plato,  offset  by  his  sound,  practical 
judgment.  In  connection  with  his  highly  theoretical 
"City  of  the  Sun"  should  be  read  the  practical  treatise, 
"A  Discourse  touching  the  Spanish  Monarchy."2 

These  two  works  illustrate  widely  differing  methods. 
The  "Discourses"  are  historical  in  nature  and  of  a 
practical  turn ;  written,  as  were  other  Italian  works,  to 
give  advice  to  a  prince,  they  are  similar  to  the  "Laws" 
of  Plato  as  compared  with  his  "Republic."  This  work 
is  marked  by  good  sense  and  keen  insight  and  shows 
power  of  practical  observation.  The  "  City  of  the  Sun," 

1  Campanella  spent  twenty-six  years  in  prison,  where  much  of  his 
writing  was  done.     He  was  treated  far  more  considerately  than  other 
radicals  as  he  stayed  in  the  church.     Bruno,  an  anti-Catholic  sceptic, 
was  burned  at  the  stake  in  Rome,  1600. 

2  Calenda,  op.  tit.,  pp.  16  el  seq. 


142      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE   FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

on  the  other  hand,  is  idealistic,  philosophic,  and  at  times 
fantastic.  The  "Discourses"  were  a  direct  outgrowth 
of  his  study  of  the  Spanish  Monarchy  and  its  relation  to 
the  Italian  states  which  had  come  under  its  rule.  The 
work  was  translated  into  English  in  1654  at  the  request 
of  Cromwell  and  became  widely  known.  Its  relation 
to  Spain  was  very  similar  to  the  relation  of  "Utopia"  to 
England.  It  was  written  primarily  to  lead  to  reform 
in  the  Monarchy,  but  like  the  "Utopia"  it  had  a  larger 
intent  and  contemplated  the  general  political  situa- 
tion. 

Only  such  reference  will  be  here  made  to  the  "Dis- 
courses" as  may  shed  light  on  the  general  theories  of 
Campanella.  The  sub-title  is  of  some  interest,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  views  of  the  author.  Translated, 
it  reads,  "Some  Directions  and  Practices  whereby  the 
King  of  Spain  may  attain  to  Universal  Monarchy." 
Bearing  on  the  same  point  he  has  in  the  Preface  set  forth 
the  historic  movements  tending  in  this  direction.  The 
tendency  shown  by  Campanella  to  shake  loose  from  the 
old  manner  of  interpreting  things  in  terms  of  theology 
is  clearly  shown  in  the  Preface.  "I  shall,  notwith- 
standing, in  a  brief  and  compendious  way,  give  your 
Lordship  an  account  what  my  judgment  is  concerning 
this  subject  and  shall  give  in  the  causes  of  each  several 

1  Citations  are  to  the  first  English  edition  which  was  done  from 
Latin  in  1654,  at  the  request  of  Cromwell. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES   OF  CAMPANELLA  143 

point ;  in  General  first ;  not  after  a  natural  nor  Theo- 
logical but  after  a  political  way." 

In  his  views  and  in  his  conscious  efforts  to  use  a 
certain  analytic  method,  Campanella  was  in  advance  of 
his  contemporaries.  In  his  "Discourses"  he  first  lays 
down  certain  general  principles  which  monarchs  should 
follow  and  then  proceeds  historically  to  test  their 
validity  by  examining  the  nations  which  had  followed 
them.  To  certain  conscious  lines  of  action  he  attributes 
national  strength  and  perpetuity.  He  furthermore 
clearly  distinguishes  between  primary  and  secondary 
causes  operating  in  social  life.  Speaking  of  historical 
causes  he  says,  "Fate  is  nothing  else  than  the  con- 
curring of  all  the  causes  working  by  virtue  of  the  first 
Cause."  l 

In  his  social  doctrines,  as  set  forth  in  the  "  Discourses," 
he  clearly  recognizes  the  effect  of  physical  environment 
as  a  cause  in  social  evolution.2  Thus  his  theory  of 
social  interpretation  follows,  perhaps  not  so  distinctly 
as  the  "Spirit  of  Laws,"  those  lines  of  reasoning  later 
followed  by  Montesquieu,  to  whom  is  generally  at- 
tributed the  introduction  of  this  style  of  reasoning.  In 
his  "City  of  the  Sun"  Campanella  attributes  social 

1  Campanella,  "  A  Discourse  touching  the  Spanish  Monarchy, "  etc., 
London,  1654,  p.  i. 

2  Ibid.,  Ch.  XXVII.     Here  he  discusses  the  influence  of  climate 
on  fecundity  and  the  increase  of  certain  social  and  individual  quali- 
ties. 


144      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

changes  to  the  stars  and  lays  stress  on  the  general 
cosmography  as  an  aid  to  an  understanding  of  the 
control  of  human  affairs.  In  his  "Discourses"  he 
treats  in  a  discriminating  manner  of  the  relations  of 
geographical  environment  to  social  change.  As  will 
be  shown  later  this  is  a  thoroughly  socialistic  view  point. 
The  highly  theoretical  nature  of  the  "City  of  the  Sun" 
is  offset  by  the  fact  that  Campanella  had  designed  to 
found  a  republic  in  Calabria,  the  leading  features  of 
which  were  outlined  in  his  "City  of  the  Sun."  There 
was,  then,  a  very  practical  turn  to  the  mind  of  the 
Calabrian  monk,  and  when  he  touches  political  and 
social  subjects  he  displays  considerable  capacity. 

4.  Only  the  briefest  notice  can  be  taken  here  of  the 
place  Campanella  held  in  the  development  of  that 
thought  his  century  did  so  much  to  bring  forth.  This 
task  belongs  rather  to  the  study  of  the  philosopher  than 
of  the  socialist,  but  a  sketch  of  the  man  must  be  very 
incomplete  that  omits  it  entirely.  A  clue  to  his  work 
along  lines  of  inductive  science  may  be  gained  from 
his  "Discourses."  In  the  sphere  of  physical  science  he 
advised  the  rejection  of  the  Aristotelian  theories  and 
methods  and  he  attempted  to  demolish  the  ancient 
cosmography  through  the  development  of  more  ac- 
curate knowledge  and  the  adoption  of  the  inductive 
method.  To  this  end  he  advised  the  Spanish  monarch 
to  close  the  Greek  schools  which  must  of  necessity 


LIFE  AND   TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  145 

teach  both  the  matter  and  the  method  of  the  Aristotelian 
school. 

He  furthermore  advised  him  to  found  and  foster  the 
Arabic  schools,  because  of  the  attention  they  paid  to 
mathematics  and  geography.1  On  this  he  says :  "Then 
let  him  get  about  him  the  ablest  cosmographers  that  he 
can  and  assign  them  liberal  advances ;  whose  business  it 
shall  be  to  describe  those  various  parts  of  the  world 
wheresoever  the  Spaniards  shall  have  set  footing 
throughout  the  entire  world;  because  that  Ptolemy 
knew  nothing  of  those  countries  at  all.  And  let  him  by 
the  industry  of  these  mathematicians  correct  all  the 
errors  of  the  ancient  geographers."  Of  the  teachings 
of  Aristotle  he  says,  "Aristotle,  though  his  teachings 
were  impious,  yet  was  he  little  of  a  hindrance  to  Alex- 
ander." In  his  references  to  the  ancient  school  Cam- 
panella  shows  the  same  radical  attitude  seen  in  his 
social  theories. 

5.  It  is  coming  to  be  more  clearly  appreciated  by 
students  of  social  and  economic  science  that  it  is  nec- 
essary to  study  and  to  grasp  the  general  philosophy  of 
the  world's  great  teachers.  The  method  of  Spencer 
in  his  synthetic  philosophy  shows  how  imperative  is  this 
demand.  Underlying  any  special  theory  on  social  or 
economic  life  or  process  is  to  be  sought  the  substratum 

1  Campanella,  "A  Discourse  touching  the  Spanish  Monarchy,"  etc. 
Ch.  X. 

L 


146      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

of  philosophy  and  the  general  world- view.  Perhaps 
the  German  students  have  gone  about  this  task  most 
seriously  and  the  term  "Weltanschauung"  has  come  to 
occupy  a  very  prominent  place  in  their  vocabulary  of 
social  science.1  Especially  is  this  true  with  those 
periods  when  revolution  is  prevailing  and  when 
"natural  rights"  instead  of  historic  or  traditional  privi- 
leges are  emphasized;  when  the  metaphysician,  and 
not  the  historian  or  the  dogmatist,  has  the  field.  Of 
socialism  these  statements  are  true  in  a  very  particular 
manner.  Socialism  is  not  only  an  economic,  it  is  an 
ethical  system  as  well,  and  pretends  to  reestablish  man- 
kind on  a  new  basis  of  right-thinking  and  right-dealing. 
It  is  necessary,  then,  to  take  frequent  excursions  into 
the  realm  of  general  philosophy  and  metaphysics  to  dis- 
cover those  lines  of  reasoning,  knowledge  of  which 
makes  clearer  the  movements  in  the  progress  of  social 
thought. 

Now  in  these  early  periods  of  the  history  of  social 
thought,  metaphysics  and  a  very  abstract  philosophy 
bore  about  the  same  relation  to  social  theory  as  do  the 
natural  sciences  to-day.2  Psychology,  in  its  application 
to  social  and  economic  science,  may  be  said  to  have 
displaced  metaphysics  and,  dealing  primarily  with  the 

1  Labriola,  op.  cit.,  p.  14. 

2  "  A  long  development  of  the  inorganic  and  vital  sciences  was  nec- 
essary before  sociology  or  morals  could  attain  their  normal  constitu- 
tion."—  Ingram,  "A  History  of  Political  Economy,"  p.  n. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES   OF  CAMPANELLA  147 

individual,  may  be  called  an  outgrowth  of  that  meta- 
physics which  dealt  with  an  extreme  form  of  individ- 
ualism which  helped  to  produce  the  French  Revolution. 
Present-day  social  science,  on  the  other  hand,  tends  to 
interpret  phenomena  in  terms  of  material  thought, 
geography,  climate,  and  the  like.  Early  social  study  was 
carried  on  in  the  light  of  metaphysical  and  idealistic 
modes  of  thinking;  modern  social  investigation  ad- 
vances along  lines  drawn  by  the  physical  scientist  and 
in  the  light  of  evolutionary  thought.  Applied  in  a 
spirit  of  reform  or  of  revolution  the  one  mode  of  thought 
produced  an  idealistic,  Utopian,  impracticable  type  of 
socialism;  while  the  other  gave  a  realistic,  practical, 
scientific  type. 

This  metaphysical-theological  mode  of  viewing  so- 
ciety pretty  largely  prevailed  till  the  opening  of  the 
nineteenth  century  and  was  at  its  height  when  Cam- 
panella  wrote.  Socialism  during  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury yielded  to  the  same  all-conquering  force  of  the 
scientific  spirit  and  the  socialism  of  Karl  Marx  was  a 
natural  result.  What  has  been  said  may  be  summed  up 
in  the  statement  of  Royce  that  a  general  philosophy  is 
necessary  to  give  unity  to  theories  and  facts  and  an 
explanation  of  life  and  of  the  world.1 

1  All  great  social  schemes  have  been  a  result  of  an  attempt  to  apply 
a  general  philosophy  to  social  life.  The  history  of  the  social  ideas 
and  ideals  of  Aristotle  and  Plato  is  but  their  attempted  application  of 


148      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

A  glance,  therefore,  into  the  realm  of  philosophic 
thought  in  which  Campanella  moved  may  be  useful  in 
explaining  his  social  scheme  so  largely  metaphysical. 
As  one  of  the  most  learned  opponents  of  Aristotle,  a 
forerunner  of  Bacon  in  the  field  of  induction,  a  pre- 
cursor of  Montesquieu  in  his  mode  of  social  interpreta- 
tion —  and  withal  a  most  philosophic  and  mystical 
theorizer  in  social  spheres,  Campanella's  career  cer- 
tainly justifies  a  general  study. 

In  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  old 
system  of  philosophy  was  very  seriously  shaken.  The 
Age  of  Discovery,  the  influences  of  the  Reformation, 
and  the  liberation  of  the  human  mind  following  the 
Renaissance  and  other  great  movements,  tended  to 
destroy  the  old  and  usher  in  the  new  age.  It  was  to  the 
introduction  of  this  new  age  that  Campanella  lent  his 
efforts  and  directed  his  massive  intellectual  powers.  It 
was  as  a  disciple  of  Telesius,  who  had  long  opposed  the 
earlier  teachings,  that  Campanella  first  doubted  and 
then  denied  the  ancient  dogma  and  helped  to  lead  in  the 
inductive  age.  Kozlowski  says  of  him,1  that  he  was  the 
first  philosopher  who  went  over  to  the  side  of  sense- 

their  philosophy  to  social  problems.  The  Metaphysics  of  Campanella 
helps  to  explain  his  peculiar  views.  The  social  philosophy  and  schemes 
in  revolutionary  France  rest  finally  upon  the  metaphysics  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  Cf.  Royce,  "Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy," 
Boston  and  N.  Y.,  1892,  pp.  1-2. 
1  Op.  tit.,  p.  21. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  149 

perception,  and  attempted  to  construct  a  philosophy 
and  a  science  in  which  there  would  be  a  large  element 
of  exact  reasoning  based  upon  actual  evidence.  His 
great  work  was  the  first  attempt  at  a  general  synthesis 
of  the  sciences,  an  attempted  synthetic  philosophy. 
In  this  "  Universalis  philosophic  sive  metaphisicorum 
rerum  intra  propria  dogmata  partes  IV,"  he  pretends 
to  treat  the  field  of  human  knowledge.  This  work 
includes  a  variety  of  subjects  among  which  is  found  his 
treatise  on  society  as  a  part  of  the  general  philosophy. 

As  Campanella  pretended  to  apply  his  positive 
method  to  the  social  sciences  it  may  be  well  to  note  its 
chief  features.  To  him  the  knowledge  gained  by 
sense-perception  was  the^  only  real  knowledge.  Led 
to  draw  a  sharp  distinction  between  this  real  knowl- 
edge and  common  opinion,  he  came  to  look  upon  ex- 
perience and  induction  as  the  only  safe  method  of 
acquiring  knowledge.1 

There  is,  however,  a  most  marked  inconsistency  in 
the  career  of  Campanella.  His  thinking  presents  a 
peculiar  mixture  of  idealism  and  realism,  of  spiritualism 
and  materialism.  In  his  general  philosophy  both  as  to 
matter  and  method  he  was  a  decided  sensualist,  ap- 
proaching the  modern  materialist.2  In  his  social 

1  Wuttge,  "  Erkenntnistheorie  und  Ethik  des  Tommaso  Campa- 
nella," p.  33. 

1  Franck,  op.  tit.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  162  et  seq. 


150      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH    REVOLUTION 

teachings  he  was  highly  deductive  and  metaphysical. 
Hence  in  his  "City  of  the  Sun"  there  appears  the  most 
peculiar  cosmogony  and  throughout  his  social  scheme 
there  runs  a  mystifying  symbolism.  Plato  did  not  so 
completely  involve  his  social  scheme  in  his  philosophy 
as  did  his  later  imitator.  Thus  some  of  his  theory 
seems  totally  unreasonable  when  divorced  from  his 
general  metaphysical  scheme.  In  this  scheme  all 
matter  is  animated  by  a  soul.  There  is  an  internal  soul 
which  corresponds  to  the  soul  of  man  and  an  external 
soul  immanent  in  the  world.  The  trees,  animals,  and 
rocks  are  all  animated  by  this  external  soul.  In  his 
scheme  of  social  organization  the  sun  figures  as  the 
chief  ruler ;  he  describes  the  "fity  of  the  Sun."  "Hoh" 
is  the  sun,  which  symbolizes  "power,"  or  the  greatest 
controlling  force,  and  is  endowed  with  the  external 
soul.  In  his  theory,  existence  was  based  upon  feeling; 
therefore  everything  existing  had  feeling.  Knowledge 
was  an  accumulation  of  experiences,  and  hence  every- 
thing could  have  knowledge.  Love  is  defined  as  a 
state  of  perfect  harmony  existing  in  the  world.  In  his 
idea  of  a  perfect  social  state  there  are  these  three  con- 
trolling forces:  power,  knowledge,  and  love. 

On  these  propositions  rested  Campanella's  hope  for 
social  harmony.  He  conceived  all  existence  as  pre- 
senting this  inner  spiritual  harmony  and  unity,  and  it 
is  a  result  of  an  unnatural  social  arrangement  that 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  151 

society  is  at  war.  This  is  only  a  more  mystical,  meta- 
physical way  of  stating  the  doctrine  of  natural  law  and 
order,  essential  and  natural,  which  theory  underlay  the 
optimism  of  the  eighteenth  century.  On  this  same  idea 
of  an  inner  unity  and  hence  a  possible  harmony  was 
founded  the  hopeful  social  philosophy  of  the  early 
French  socialists  and  indeed  of  those  far  down  into  the 
last  century.  Campanella  taught  that  there  was  a 
double  trinity,  —  power,  knowledge  and  love,  as  found 
in  man,  external  nature,  and  God.  It  was  in  the 
heavenly  bodies  that  he  saw  the  most  perfect  expression 
of  this  external  soul;  he  was  therefore  much  occupied 
with  astrology  and  believed  social  affairs  were  in  some 
mysterious  manner  controlled  by  the  stars. 

6.  As  a  result  of  Campanula's  opposition  to  Aris- 
totle, he  was  inclined  to  take  up  the  theories  of  Plato 
and  in  a  way  became  very  sympathetic  with  the  teach- 
ings set  forth  in  the  "Republic."1  In  many  of  the 
main  features  of  his  social  doctrines  he  was  a  follower 
of  Plato;  while  in  regard  to  his  principal  contention, 
that  is,  that  a  communistic  society  would  succeed,  he 
directly  opposed  Aristotle.  He  denies  that  the  property 
bond  is  the  only  basis  for  social  unity,  and  that  the 
acquisitive  spirit  is  the  only  one  which  furnishes  the 
motive  to  toil. 

1  Fornari,  "  Delle  Teorie  economiche  nelle  Provincie  Napolitane 
dal  secolo  XIII  al  XVIII,"  1882,  p.  186. 


152      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

No  serious  attempt  has  been  made  by  the  admirers  of 
the  Italian  monk  to  dispute  the  place  so  long  held  by 
Bacon  in  the  progress  of  human  thought.  It  is  of  some 
interest,  however,  to  note  that  while  the  great  English- 
man was  working  out  his  system,  another  noted  scholar 
was  engaged  along  similar  lines  in  Italy;  and  that 
Campanella  was,  by  an  application  of  the  new  scientific 
method,  making  for  himself  a  place  comparable  to  that 
which  Bacon  was  to  occupy  in  English  culture.  As  a 
critic  says :  "  Et  voila  ou  Campanella  voit  1'avenir  de  la 
philosophic  et  la  re'ge'ne'ration  de  toutes  les  sciences."  * 

7.  Certain  works  have  already  been  cited  as  sources 
of  the  thought  of  Campanella.  Reference  is  here  made 
to  an  influence  of  considerable  importance  exerted  on 
the  minds  of  reformers  by  the  Jesuits  and  their  institu- 
tions in  South  America.  These  seem  to  have  been 
partly  the  cause  and  partly  the  result  of  Campanella's 
views. 

1  Adolphe  Franck,  "  Re'formateurs  et  publicistes  de  1'Europe," 
Vol.  II,  p.  153. 

The  following  works  are  on  the  philosophy  of  Campanella: 
Kozlowski,  "Die  Erkenntnislehre  Campanellas,"  1897;  Strater, 
"Briefe  iiber  Italianischen  Philosophen " ;  "Zeitschrift  der  Ge- 
danke,"  1864-1865;  Carriere,  "Die  philosophische  Weltanschauung 
der  Reformationszeit,"  1847;  Baudrillart,  "Tableau  des  Theories 
Politique  et  des  Idees  Economiques  au  Seizieme  Siecle,"  1853; 
Rixner  und  Siber,  "Leben  und  Lehrmeinungen  Beriihmter  Physiker 
amEnde  des  XVI  und  am  Anfange  des  XVII  Jahrhunderts,"  1829. 

Besides  these,  standard  histories  as  Royce,  Weber,  Uberweg,  and 
the  like  may  be  consulted. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES   OF  CAMPANELLA  153 

The  attempt  to  bring  these  Jesuit  communistic 
schemes  into  proper  relationship  to  the  prevalent  social 
theories  was  induced  by  the  title  of  the  leading  author- 
ity on  this  subject;  "The  history  of  Paraguay,  con- 
taining amongst  many,  new,  curious,  and  interesting 
particulars;  a  full  and  authentic  account  of  the  es- 
tablishment formed  there  by  the  Jesuits,  from  among 
the  savage  nations,  in  the  very  centre  of  barbarism; 
establishments  allowed  to  have  realized  the  sublime 
ideas  of  Fenelon,  Thomas  More,  and  Plato ;  by  Charle- 
voix,  1759." 

Of  all  attempts  to  organize  an  artificial  society  and  to 
conduct  affairs  after  a  definite  plan,  with  a  decided 
creed  and  consciously  wrought-out  purpose,  the  Jesuit 
colony  of  South  America  furnishes  the  most  conspicuous 
example.  It  was  the  most  extensive  and  successful 
attempt  at  establishing  a  society  after  the  dreams  of 
idealists  and  reformers.  This  was  a  heroic  example  of 
the  application  of  close,  minute  social  control  to  the 
affairs  of  a  society  based  upon  communism.  "  Loyola 
contemplated  calling  into  existence  an  organization, 
novel  in  character  and  in  scope,  and  that  fact  he  sought 
to  impress  on  the  world  by  a  title  conspicuously  ex- 
pressive of  superior  pretensions."  l 

Brief  analysis  will  reveal  close  bonds  of  unity  between 
the  doctrines  of  Campanella  and  this  Jesuit  scheme  of  a 

1  Graham,  "The  Jesuits,"  p.  8. 


154      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

regenerated  social  organization.  Both  were  at  war 
with  the  same  despotic  power  —  the  Spanish  Monarchy. 
Campanella  was  striving  to  drive  Spain  from  Southern 
Italy;  the  Jesuits,  exiled  from  most  lands,  had  set  on 
foot  a  most  ambitious  plan  to  colonize  in  the  South  and 
finally  to  drive  and  keep  Spain  out  of  South  America 
while  their  priests  attempted  to  take  North  America. 
Here  was  a  gigantic  project  contemplating  the  conquest 
of  territory  from  Canada  to  Paraguay.  Attention, 
however,  can  only  be  called  to  the  communistic  state  of 
Paraguay.1 

Specifically,  then,  wherein  lies  the  similarity  between 
the  Jesuit  schemes  and  the  teachings  of  the  Italian 
monk?  In  the  first  place,  as  has  been  said,  both 
adhere  to  the  idea  of  close  control  by  the  state  of  the 
form  and  process  of  organized  society.  Naturally, 
both  advised  the  suppression  of  the  individual  with  a 
weakening  of  the  motive  of  selfishness  and  an  en- 
largement of  the  power  of  the  social  will  and  of  social 
motives.  There  is  found  with  both  the  happy  thought 
that  labor  can  be  made  attractive  and  thus  the  need  of 
an  external  motive  be  lessened  or  removed.2 


1  Rambaud,  "  Histoire  Generate,"  Paris,  1895 ;  Vol.  V,  pp.  698 
el  seq. 

1  "  On  the  one  hand,  every  conceivable  guarantee  is  provided  for 
crushing  out  any  germs  of  independent  impulse  that  could  pos- 
sibly allow  momentary  play  to  an  individual  member;  to  some 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  155 

In  their  practice  the  Jesuits  also  followed  the  theory 
of  Campanella.  The  actual  organization  of  the  Jesuit 
colonies  in  Paraguay  suggests  very  strongly  the  plan  laid 
down  in  the  "City  of  the  Sun."  The  establishments 
were  built  around  central  points,  in  which  centres  were 
grouped  all  the  inhabitants  as  Campanella  suggested. 
In  the  midst  of  all  was  the  church.  On  the  outlying 
lands  were  the  houses  constructed  for  industrial  pur- 
poses, but  not  for  residences.  In  these  and  other 
external  features  there  was  a  striking  resemblance 
between  the  two  schemes  of  social  organization. 

Property  relations  in  Paraguay  were  also  similar  to 
those  set  forth  in  the  "  City  of  the  Sun."  *  The  land 
that  was  in  any  community  was  the  common  property 
of  the  group ;  its  entire  control  was  in  the  government. 
In  addition  there  was  a  portion  set  aside  near  the 
towns,  which  was  in  a  special  sense  a  commons,  culti- 
vated by  the  community  jointly.  This  feature  re- 
sembled the  early  English  "commons."  2  The  prod- 
uct of  this  common  labor  and  land  was  stored  in  maga- 

movement  of  dissent,  however  suppressed  or  strictly  mental  from 
another  emanating  from  a  superior."  —  Graham,  "The  Jesuits," 
p.  14. 

1  Gothein,    "  Der  christlich-sociale   Staat   der  Jesuiten  in  Para- 
guay," Schmoller's  "Staats-  u.  Socialwissenschaftliche  Forschungen," 
Vol.  4,  No.  4,  p.  5.    Cf.  also,  Graham,  "Vanished  Acadia." 

2  Kobler,   "  Der  christliche   Communismus  in   den   Reductionen 
von  Paraguay,"  etc.,  Wiirzburg,  1877,  p.  26. 


156      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

zines  and  kept  for  common  distribution.  The  land  lying 
farther  out  was  divided  every  so  often  among  the 
families,  according  to  the  number  of  members  in  each. 
This  land  was  not  considered  private  property;  could 
not  be  bought  nor  sold  by  the  person  cultivating  it ;  and 
could  be  burdened  in  no  manner  in  favor  of  the  holder, 
nor  to  the  injury  of  the  community  right  therein.  The 
same  thing  held  true  of  the  houses.  Certain  forms  of 
personal  property  could,  however,  be  acquired  in  the 
Jesuit  colonies.  This  was  one  feature  in  their  peculiar 
polity  that  furnished  a  motive  to  industry  and  frugality. 
Those  who  showed  idleness  were  compelled  to  labor.1 
An  interesting  regulation  reflecting  feudal  influence  re- 
quired all  the  population,  men  and  women,  to  give  one 
day  per  week  to  the  cultivation  of  the  commons  and  that 
without  compensation. 

8.  It  is  needless  here  to  emphasize  the  very  great 
importance  of  the  Jesuits  in  the  field  of  education.  It 
may,  however,  be  of  some  interest  to  examine  their 
policy  in  Paraguay  as  it  ran  parallel  to  the  idea  of 
Campanella.  They  made  a  twofold  division  of  the 
youth.  The  larger  class  devoted  their  energies  to 
industrial  lines.  These  were  placed  in  schools  where 
trades  were  learned  and  practised.  Those  not  directly 
determined  for  industrial  life  were  given  culture  of  a 
more  general  kind,  being  trained  in  the  more  ele- 

1  Kobler,  op.  tit.,  pp.  26-27. 


LIFE   AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  157 

mentary  subjects,  such  as  language  and  mathematics. 
As  is  done  in  all  socialistic  schemes,  the  Jesuits  laid 
great  stress  on  agriculture,  training  in  this  line  being 
compulsory  for  all.  The  common  fields  referred  to 
above  were  a  kind  of  agricultural  station  where  training 
was  carried  on. 

As  in  the  scheme  of  Campanella  the  Jesuits  gave  much 
attention  to  the  industrial  arts.  This  fact  contributed 
much  to  the  early  success  of  the  social  experiments  in 
South  America.1  Commerce  and  trade  in  Paraguay 
were  all  controlled  by  the  public  power,  none  being 
left  in  private  hands. 

In  these  colonies  there  appeared  the  same  problems 
which  all  socialism  must  face.  The  abandonment  of 
private  property  destroyed  at  once  the  basis  of  social 
unity  and  a  chief  motive  to  industry.  In  Paraguay 
this  lack  seems  to  have  been  supplied  largely  by  re- 
ligious enthusiasm.2 

9.  Campanella  and  the  Jesuit  reformers  differed  on 
the  question  of  the  family.  In  Paraguay  the  Jesuits 
made  provision  for  the  continuance  of  the  family, 
though  marriage  was  very  closely  controlled  by  the 
public  power.  Both  were  eager  to  suppress  selfishness, 

1  Gothein,  op.  cit.,  p.  9. 

2  "The  spiritual  attachment  to  their  order,  the  strongest  perhaps 
that  ever  influenced  any  body  of  people,  is  characteristic  of  the  Jesuits 
and  serves  as  a  key  to  the  genius  of  their  policy."  —  Robertson,  "His- 
tory of  Charles  V,"  Philadelphia,  1883,  Vol.  II,  p.  453. 


158      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

ambition,  and  greed;  these  must  be  eliminated  if 
society  is  to  reach  its  highest  purpose.  The  Jesuits 
favored  the  employment  of  free  labor  as  opposed  to 
slaves,  while  Campanella  under  conditions  would  allow 
slavery. 

Certain  features  marking  these  colonies  are  in  line 
with  early  social  ideals.  In  the  first  place,  they  were 
founded  in  an  isolated  portion  of  the  earth  away  from 
the  traditions  and  established  institutions,  with  none  of 
the  forms  of  ancient  culture  to  disturb.  Again,  they 
were  planted  among  a  barbarian  people ;  among  a  peo- 
ple about  as  near  Rousseau's  "man  of  nature"  as  could 
be  hoped  for.  It  is  also  true  that  the  originators  of  this 
social  scheme  were  fitted  to  bring  such  an  experiment 
to  success  because  of  their  zeal  and  devotion  and  of  the 
definiteness  of  their  plan,  to  which  they  consistently 
adhered.  The  religious  enthusiasm  and  exaggerated 
pietism,  so  characteristic  of  communistic  experiments, 
was  also  not  lacking  among  the  Jesuits.  There  has 
been  a  variety  of  attempts  to  solve  the  social  problem 
through  state  or  school  and  church.  The  communist 
colonies  of  the  Jesuits  in  Paraguay  were  marked  by 
the  most  serious  effort  to  solve  it  by  means  of  the 
church. 

There  is,  however,  a  more  important  and  interesting 
feature  of  the  Jesuit  teaching  bearing  upon  the  social- 
ism of  Campanella  and  indeed  upon  all  social  theory  of 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  159 

this  type.  It  has  been  already  pointed  out  that  all 
forms  of  Utopian  socialism  base  the  hope  of  a  recon- 
structed society  upon  the  possibility  of  abandoning  the 
forms  and  traditions  of  the  past,  in  order  that  a  social 
state  may  be  set  up  after  a  preconceived  plan.  It  is 
therefore  of  importance  to  note  that  of  the  political 
thinkers  of  that  age  the  Jesuits  were  the  first  to  recog- 
nize the  changeable  nature  of  the  state.  It  was  well 
along  in  the  new  era  before  the  theory  was  seriously 
questioned  that  the  church  and  the  state  were  one. 
The  sacredness  and  stability  attributed  to  the  church 
had  also  been  posited  of  the  state.  The  stability  of 
monarchy  had  as  its  support  the  idea  of  the  inviola- 
bility and  perpetuity  of  the  church.  It  was  largely 
due  to  Jesuit  teaching  that  this  dogma  was  aban- 
doned. The  church  was  left  to  enjoy  protection 
from  innovation,  while  the  state  and  soon  society 
itself  were  to  be  shaken  to  their  foundations  as  they 
came  to  be  viewed  more  and  more  as  subject  to  the 
social  will.1 

10.  It  is  easier  to  say  that  the  Jesuit  socialistic 
experiment  did  much  to  mould  the  thought  of  Campa- 
nella  than  to  measure  the  extent  of  that  influence.  The 
inference,  however,  seems  safe  that  their  plans  formed 
one  general  social  scheme.  Certain  it  is  that  the  order 

1  Gothein,  op.  cit.,  pp.  2-3.  See  also  Gierke,  "Althusius,"  Pt.  a, 
Ch.  i,  p.  65. 


160    SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

was  at  that  time  attracting  universal  attention.  Rulers 
and  students  were  watching  with  interest  and  appre- 
hension as  the  Jesuits  carried  on  their  experiment. 
That  Campanella  has  voiced  some  of  their  views  seems 
highly  probable.1 

Back  of  the  two  books  from  the  pen  of  the  Italian, 
and  inspiring  his  practical  experiments,  there  was  a 
large  public  purpose  in  which  the  Jesuits  took  part. 
He  had  advocated  in  his  writings  and  had  proposed  a 
practical  plan  on  a  small  scale  of  what  they  projected 
so  large.  Both  were  thinking  of  an  enlarged  Catholic 
rule;  a  more  extended  papal  control;  a  Catholic 
system,  reformed,  liberalized,  and  reconstructed.  He 
and  the  Jesuit  teachers  saw,  what  the  modern  church- 
men are  slow  at  grasping,  that  the  church  must  meet 
the  social  needs  if  it  is  to  maintain  its  place  and  power. 
They  saw  that  the  church  must  enter  the  field  of  social 
reform.  The  closing  decades  of  the  last  century  have 
witnessed  much  the  same  movement  on  the  part  of  the 
church. 

That  Campanula's  teaching  had  its  influence  on  the 
Jesuit  system  seems  also  true.  The  two  men  most 
influential  in  Jesuit  society  were  Italians,  Cataldino 
and  Maceta.  They  were,  in  all  likelihood,  known  to 
Campanella;  there  was  also,  in  all  probability,  a 
common  knowledge  of  the  principles  they  so  vigorously 

1  Gothein,  op.  cit.,  p.  3. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES   OF  CAMPANELLA  l6l 

applied.  On  this  Kirchenheim  says:  "Such  was  the 
Christian  social  state  of  the  Jesuits  in  Paraguay,  of 
which  Campanella  in  the  prison  had  written.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  this  state  agreed  not  merely  in  general  princi- 
ples, but  in  its  details  with  the  scheme  of  Campanella." 
"The  philosophic  writers  and  these  practical  reformers 
attempted  to  build  a  state  after  a  given  mechanical 
form."  ' 

u.  One  feature  worthy  of  note  was  the  cosmopolitan 
views  of  Campanella.  A  few  general  facts  may  help 
explain  the  breadth  of  his  view.  The  first  one  of  a 
very  general  nature  was  his  philosophic  habit  of  mind. 
Philosophy,  dealing  as  it  does  with  the  world  of  the 
abstract,  is  apt  to  lose  the  particular  in  the  general  and 
the  special  in  the  universal.  History  furnishes  many 
illustrations  of  this.  One  of  the  best  examples  was  the 
condition  in  Germany  during  her  "humiliation,"  while 
her  great  philosophers  were  "ruling  the  air."  As  a 

1  On  this  subject  consult:  Gierke,  "Althusius";  Pierre  Francois 
Xavier  de  Charlevoix,  "Histoire  du  Paraguay,"  Paris,  1757,  2  vols. ; 
Gothein,  "Ignatius  Loyola und  die  Gegenreformation,"  1885;  "Der 
christlich-sociale  Staat  der  Jesuiten  in  Paraguay";  "Staats- und 
Socialwissenschaftliche  Forschungen,"  Band  4,  Heft  4 ;  Handelmann, 
"Geschichte  von  Brasilien,"  1860;  Gottheil,  "Die  Jesuiten  Colonien 
Paraguay" ;  Bonifacio,  "Les  Jesuites  et  Pedagogic  au  XVIme  Siecle," 
1894;  Hughes,  "Loyola  and  the  Educational  System  of  the  Jesuits," 
1892;  E.  Friedberg,  "Die  Mittelalterlichen  Lehren  iiber  das  Ver- 
haltniss  von  Staat  und  Kirche,"  1874;  Dollinger,  "Kirche  und 
Kirchen.," etc,  1861 ;  Kirchenheim,  "L'Eternelle  Utopie,"  1897, p.  133. 

M 


162     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

land  she  was  disunited  and  humiliated.  Her  thinkers 
were  too  cosmopolitan  to  be  national;  they  dealt  too 
much  with  the  abstract  and  the  universal  to  care  for  the 
local  and  practical  affairs.  This  state  of  things  holds 
in  Italy  in  the  age  of  Campanella.  While  the  nation, 
already  divided,  was  thus  solidifying  into  many  war- 
ring kingdoms,  to  endure  for  three  hundred  years,  her 
philosophers  were  busy  with  the  most  general  and 
abstract  reasoning. 

Again,  Campanella  was,  in  a  way,  a  man  without  a 
country,  much  as  was  the  greatest  cosmopolitan  socialist, 
Karl  Marx.  He,  too,  was  a  kind  of  world-citizen. 
Moreover,  Italy  was  the  land  in  which  had  lingered 
the  tradition  of  a  world-empire. 

As  a  devoted  follower  of  the  papal  church  and  an 
active  member  of  the  clerical  orders,  Campanella  was 
versed  in  the  history  of  the  universal  church,  and  sym- 
pathized with  her  aspirations  to  hold  universal  empire. 
Since  the  downfall  of  the  Roman  Empire  the  papal  power 
alone  had  given  unity  to  Christendom,  and  in  it  was  the 
hope  and  aspiration  to  universal  rule.  Campanella 
believed  with  Pascal,  Grotius,  and  other  seventeenth- 
century  thinkers  in  the  unity  of  the  human  race,  and 
looked  forward  toward  the  time  when  all  peoples  should 
unite  under  one  world-power.  He  looked  for  a  more 
perfect  social  unity  through  the  reestablishment  of  a 
liberalized  Papal  See  and  through  the  growth  of  a 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  163 

Christian  empire  under  the  rule  of  the  Spanish  monarch 
as  vicegerent  of  the  Roman  power.1 

At  first,  Campanella  was  devoted  to  the  Spanish 
Monarchy  and  believed  Spain  would  one  day  come  to 
universal  dominion.  Like  so  many,  he  was  slow  to  learn 
from  the  events  of  his  day,  and  his  belief  in  a  world- 
power  seemed  very  genuine.  This  was,  of  course,  the 
direction  thought  took  till  the  spirit2  and  practice  of 
mercantilism  broke  up  the  movement  toward  world- 
unity.  As  a  recent  writer  puts  it:  "The  cosmopoli- 
tanism of  the  Middle  Ages  and  the  Renaissance,  the 
dreams  of  the  world-unity,  have  been  replaced  by  a  set 
of  narrower  ideas  concerning  customs,  laws,  literature, 
and  art  by  a  set  of  independent  states,  each  striving  to 
realize  to  its  fullest  its  independent  aptitudes  and 
characteristics.  Thus  do  the  nations  of  Western 


1  It  would  be  interesting  to  bring  the  ideas  of  Campanella  into 
contrast  with  certain  radical  teaching  in  England  of  the  Stuart  Mon-_ 
archy.  One  Dutch  writer,  Peter  Cornelius,  held  that  this  and  the  old 
system  of  society  should  come  to  an  end,  and  that  Christendom  should 
become  a  world-state  under  the  rule  of  one  magistracy.  Gooch, 
"History  of  English  Democratic  Ideas  of  the  Seventeenth  Century," 
Cambridge,  1898,  p.  209. 

3  One  of  his  biographers  says :  "  Noch  vor  seiner  Riickkehr  nach 
Stilo  hatte  er  in  dieser  Richtung  geschrieben;  iiber  die  christliche 
Monarchic,  iiber  das  Regiment  der  Kirche ;  das  Ideal  einer  christlichen 
Weltmonarchie  unter  dem  Pabst  als  Oberhaupt  schwebte  ihm  vor; 
die  spanische  Macht  sei  berufen  sie  zu  verwirklichen."  —  Sigwart, 
"Kleine  Schriften,"  Vol.  i,  p.  137. 


164     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

Europe  pass  through  a  period  marked  by  this  narrow 
spirit  of  extreme  nationalism  till  Adam  Smith  and  the 
Physiocrats  again  teach  the  lessons  of  a  broader  world- 
view  and  sympathy."  * 

Socialists  have  been  about  equally  divided  as  to 
the  breadth  of  their  sympathies.  Race  environment, 
training,  and  the  conditions  of  the  age  have  had  much 
to  do  with  the  tendencies  of  social  students  in  this 
regard.  Illustrating  those  who  were  decidedly  national 
in  their  sympathies  may  be  named  Cabet,  Rodbertus, 
and  Lassalle.  Those  of  a  greater  breadth  of  mind 
were  More,  Campanella,  Weitling,  and  Karl  Marx. 
Rodbertus  stands  as  the  best  representative  of  the 
former,  and  Marx  of  the  latter  class.2 

12.  Enough  has  been  said  already  to  indicate  the 
general  direction  of  the  political  thought  of  Campanella. 
Living  as  he  did  during  the  struggle  over  the  great 
national  problems,  the  consolidation  of  national  groups 
and  of  absolute  monarchies,  he  was  naturally  influenced 
by  it.  Along  with  his  predecessors  he  idealized  the 
"prince"  and  was  devoted  to  a  centralized  form  of 
government.  Along  with  most  reformers  of  this  type 
he  believed  in  a  hierarchy  of  personal  control.  In  this 
respect  the  early  socialistic  schemes  differ  from  any 

1  Reinsch,  "World  Politics,"  N.  Y.,  1900,  pp.  5  et  seq. 
1  On  the  recent  tendency  toward  the  international  socialism  in 
Italy,  see  Labriola,  op.  cit.t  pp.  19-20. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CAMPANELLA  165 

creed  of  anarchism.  They  always  provide  for  social 
order.  There  is  only  a  slight  tendency  toward  de- 
mocracy in  the  earlier  social  schemes;  in  fact,  very 
little  in  the  later  ones. 

One  of  Campanella's  contemporaries  presents  a  very 
interesting  contrast  touching  political  theory.  The 
Italian  advocates  an  absolute  form  of  monarchy  coupled 
with  the  destruction  of  private  property,  especially  in 
land.  Harrington,  on  the  .other  hand,  favored  a  limited 
monarchy  and  a  careful  preservation  of  private  property 
in  land.1  Harrington  made  private  ownership  of  land 
an  absolute  essential  to  the  permanence  of  society  and 
the  protection  of  the  individual.  Campanella  saw  the 
permanence  of  social  peace  and  the  happiness  of  the 
individual  possible  only  through  the  abandonment  of 
property.  With  one  the  existence  of  property  meant 
social  and  political  equilibrium ;  to  the  other  it  was  the 
prime  disturbing  element  and  a  fruitful  source  of  dis- 
cord.2 Harrington  would  create  a  hierarchy  with 
property  very  closely  controlled  by  government ;  Cam- 
panella created  a  hierarchy  with  no  semblance  of 
property. 

J"Oceana,"   1656. 

1  See  Gooch,  op.  cit.,  pp.  290  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA 

i.  Probably  no  body  of  men  ever  so  completely 
controlled  the  economic  aspects  of  society  as  did  the 
Jesuits.  The  general  propositions  laid  down  touching 
the  efforts  of  the  Jesuit  society  at  complete  social  con- 
trol, find  their  best  expression  in  the  theories  contained 
in  "City  of  the  Sun"  of  Thomas  Campanella.  His 
position  in  the  church  has  already  been  suggested  as 
leading  him  to  his  theory  of  a  reconstructed  society. 
This  general  theory  had,  indeed,  been  exemplified 
throughout  the  history  of  the  papal  church.  For 
centuries  the  church  had  attempted  in  a  most  studied 
manner  to  control  affairs,  civil,  social,  and  religious. 
Nowhere  in  history  has  a  system  flourished  whose  or- 
ganization and  orders  so  entirely  ignored  the  natural 
laws  of  society,  and  so  thoroughly  managed  the  social 
process  by  the  mandates  of  councils.  Out  of  catholic 
culture  might  be  expected  socialistic  theories  and  ex- 
periments ;  in  the  general  conflict  between  the  social  or 
centralized  control  and  the  free  play  of  the  individual 
will,  the  former  would  naturally  prevail.  The  extensive 
control  of  the  papal  church,  carried  over  into  the  in- 
dustrial sphere,  would  naturally  destroy  private  initia- 

166 


THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA  167 

tive  and  abolish  individualistic  methods  of  industry. 
Individualism  in  industry  and  its  accompanying  progress 
were  products  of  the  Reformation  and  flourished  in  those 
lands  where  papal  power  was  most  thoroughly  shaken. 

2.  In  connection  with  these  more  general  teachings 
of  Campanella  there  remain  certain  special  features 
of  his  social  scheme  worthy  of  notice. 

Of  his  theory  of  labor  it  may  be  said  that  he  opposed 
slavery  and  advocated  an  organization  of  society  upon 
the  basis  of  free  labor.  In  his  ideal  society  it  was  not 
the  custom  to  keep  slaves.1  Slavery,  idleness,  and  vice 
he  places  in  causal  relationship.  Of  the  seventy 
thousand  persons  in  the  Naples  of  his  day  only  ten  or 
fifteen  thousand  were  employed.  On  one  hand,  he 
saw  masses  of  overburdened,  overdriven  laborers;  on 
the  other,  the  idle  and  vicious  wealthy.  The  scheme 
of  Campanella  provides  for  a  better  distribution  of 
social  burdens.  In  true  Marxian  fashion  he  affirms 
that,  were  all  required  to  labor,  the  labor-day  would  be 
shortened  to  four  hours.2  This  condition  he  saw  at- 
tainable only  through  the  destruction  of  a  profit-pro- 
ducing system;  this  change  would  compel  all  to  labor 
and  make  possible  the  reduction  of  the  labor- day  to 
four  hours.8  But  in  the  "  City  of  the  Sun,"  while  duty 
and  work  are  distributed  among  all,  it  falls  to  each  one 
to  work  only  about  four  hours  every  day. 

1  "  City  of  the  Sun,"  p.  237.  2  Ibid.,  p.  238.      *  Ibid. 


1 68      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

The  chief  feature  of  the  problem,  then,  is  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  social  burden.  This  factor,  the  lead- 
ing one  in  the  socialistic  propaganda,  was  clearly  seen 
and  discussed  by  Campanella.  More  had  seen  the 
same  problem  and  had  advised  such  a  social  reorgani- 
zation as  would  reduce  the  labor-day  to  six  hours.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  this  idea  was  proposed  before 
the  machine  had  come  to  give  its  name  to  the  age,  to 
transform  industry,  and  by  augmenting  the  power  of 
labor,  to  make  possible  a  shorter  labor-day  with  a  still 
larger  product.  With  Karl  Marx  the  machine  figured 
very  largely,  and  made  possible  the  shortening  of  the 
labor-day  or  the  same  length  of  day  with  an  increased 
product,  giving  rise  to  surplus-value.  Campanella 
drew  his  conclusions  from  a  study  of  society  still  in  the 
handicraft  stage. 

3.  A  fundamental  proposition  underlies  Campanella's 
theory  of  the  short  day.  It  is  necessary  that  all  should 
labor  if  the  task  for  some  be  lightened.  When  all  the 
members  of  society  share  in  its  toils  and  sacrifices,  then 
will  the  laborer  be  freed  from  his  long  hours  and  his 
irksome  toil.  It  is  the  fact  that  the  social  drones  are 
carried  by  the  laboring  masses  that  explains  the  hard- 
ship of  labor.  In  Marxian  terms,  when  none  live  from 
surplus-value,  then  can  the  labor-day  be  shortened. 
With  Campanella,  as  with  most  socialists,  it  is  the  con- 
trol of  private  property  that  creates  a  leisure  class,  and 


THE   SOCIALISM   OF  CAMPANELLA  169 

this  leisure-class,  thus  controlling  the  product  of  in- 
dustry, exploits  labor  and  lives  from  surplus-value. 
Modern  socialism  has  devised  more  refined  means  of 
meeting  this  problem ;  the  method  of  Campanella  was 
bold  and  crude.1  He  proposed  to  throw  all  the  members 
of  society  back  upon  labor  for  their  subsistence  by 
destroying  private  property,  by  instituting  a  system 
of  communism. 

The  foundation  of  the  system  of  Campanella,  then, 
was  the  crudest  form  of  communism.  In  his  ideal 
state  all  things  were  held  in  common,  and  dispensation 
was  made  by  the  magistrates.2  His  communism  is, 
however,  of  a  broad  and  rather  noble  type.  It  does  not 
merely  contemplate  material  wealth.  It  means  the 
participation  of  all  the  members  of  the  community  in 
all  the  benefits  of  social  progress,  temporal,  and  spirit- 
ual. "Arts,  honors,  and  pleasures  are  all  in  common 
and  are  held  hi  such  manner  that  no  one  can  appropriate 
anything  to  himself."  3 

4.  The  leading  causes  of  the  existence  and  accumula- 
tion of  private  property  are  clearly  given.  At  the  basis 
lies  the  need  of  gain,  that  a  legacy  may  be  left  to  wife 
and  child.  The  home,  then,  is  the  leading  fact  in  the 

'"All  things  are  common  with  them.  "  —  "City  of  the  Sun," 
p.  225. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  225-226. 

8  "But  with  them  the  rich  and  poor  make  up  one  community; 
they  are  rich  because  they  want  nothing,  poor  because  they  possess 
nothing."  —  Ibid.,  p.  238. 


170      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

development  of  private  property.  Riches,  dignity,  and 
honor  are  of  importance  when  there  is  a  line  of  descent 
and  the  dignity  of  a  family  name  to  be  maintained. 
The  clergy,  monks,  prelates,  etc.,  are  less  useful  be- 
cause of  this  inordinate  love  of  wealth.1 

Campanella  differs  from  Morelly  and  later  writers 
in  seeing  a  vital  relationship  between  the  family  organi- 
zation and  private  property.  With  him  the  home 
fosters  the  desire  for  acquisition  and  leads  to  the  ac- 
cumulation of  property.  This  being  his  attitude  to 
the  problem,  his  theory  of  the  family  can  be  easily 
conceived.  In  the  system  devised  by  Campanella 
there  was  community  of  wives.  He  abandoned  the 
monogamous  family.  The  dwellers  in  his  ideal  city 
have  all  things  in  common,  even  the  women.  This 
custom  they  defend  from  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  the  writings  of  Clement,  Socrates,  Cato,  and 
Plato.  In  brief  but  unmistakable  terms  the  celibate 
monk  advises  the  Platonic  theory  of  community  of 
wives;  it  is  defended  as  scriptural,  historical,  and 
expeditious. 

The  union  of  the  sexes,  as  treated  by  Campanella, 
must  conserve  the  larger  interests  of  the  state  in  supply- 
ing society  with  a  healthy,  strong  population.  With 

1  "They  say  all  private  property  is  acquired  and  improved,  for 
the  reason  that  each  one  of  us  by  himself  has  his  own  home  and 
wife  and  children ;  from  this  self-love  springs."  —  "  City  of  the  Sun," 
p.  225. 


THE   SOCIALISM   OF  CAMPANELLA  1 71 

severe  satire  he  says:  "Indeed  they  laugh  at  us  who 
exhibit  a  studious  care  for  our  breed  of  horses  and  dogs, 
but  neglect  the  breeding  of  human  beings."  *  In  this, 
as  in  all  parts  of  his  scheme,  Campanella  has  the  social 
view  point.  The  pleasure,  pride,  and  dignity  of  the 
individual  life  must  yield  and  be  subordinated  to  the 
welfare  of  the  commonwealth.2  "For  they  say  that 
children  are  bred  for  the  preservation  of  the  species 
and  not  for  individual  pleasure,  as  St.  Thomas  so  often 
asserts.  Therefore  the  breeding  of  children  has  ref- 
erence to  the  commonwealth  and  not  to  individuals 
except  in  so  far  as  they  are  constituents  of  the  common- 
wealth." 3 

In  no  other  respect  does  his  artificial  view  of  society 
make  itself  so  apparent  as  in  his  regulation  of  the  family 
in  accordance  with  the  above  principle.  The  men  and 
women  were  to  have  no  choice  as  to  each  other's  com- 
panionship. Emotion  or  natural  affection  plays  no 
part  in  his  scheme.  Desire  and  impulse,  he  declares, 
are  wrong  principles  by  which  the  most  important 
feature  of  social  life  is  controlled.  "And  thus  they  dis- 
tribute male  and  female  breeders  to  the  best  natures 
according  to  philosophical  rules."  4  Where  Plato  had 

1  Ibid.,  p.  224. 

2Cf.  "A  Discourse  touching  the  Spanish  Monarchy,"  English 
translation,  1654,  p.  70. 

1  "City  of  the  Sun,"  p.  236.  * Ibid.,  p.  237. 


1/2      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

advised  the  use  of  the  lot  in  mating,  Campanella  would 
have  the  matter  adjusted  by  magistrates.  In  some  in- 
stances regard  was  had  for  individual  desire  and  choice, 
but  in  those  cases  alone  where  no  harm  could  result  to 
the  state. 

5.  As  a  corollary  to  the  foregoing  proposition  there 
was  no  room  for  a  leisure  class  in  the  scheme  of  Cam- 
panella. As  has  been  said,  it  was  necessary  that  all 
should  labor  if  the  burden  of  the  toiler  be  lightened. 
With  one-fifth  of  the  population  of  Naples  employed  and 
four-fifths  idle,  long  days  and  heavy  work  were  a 
grinding  necessity;  with  all  the  population  produc- 
tively employed  a  reduced  labor-day  would  follow. 
Provision  was  made  for  the  indigent  aged;  they  were 
public  charges.  There  was  to  be  no  "  sturdy  vagabond  " 
class,  as  these  must  engage  in  some  industry.  There 
was  no  chance  for  the  growth  of  a  beggar  class,  as 
labor  was  suited  to  the  capacities  of  all. 

Campanella  saw  the  dangers  arising  from  idleness  in 
all  three  classes.  The  idle  rich  went  to  extremes  in 
luxury  and  indulgence,  and  fell  a  prey  to  vice.  The 
industrious  were  to  spend  their  leisure  in  recreation, 
study,  and  self-improvement  lest  they  degenerate. 
Efforts  must  be  made  to  prevent  the  lame,  blind,  and 
unfortunate  from  becoming  a  public  charge.  Em- 
phasis to-day  is  placed  upon  the  dangers  of  the  idle 
rich;  Campanella  called  attention  to  the  need  of  pre- 


THE  SOCIALISM   OF  CAMPANELLA  173 

venting  an  idle  poor  class.  "  No  physical  defect  renders 
a  man  incapable  of  service  except  the  decreptitude 
of  old  age,  and  even  the  deformed  are  useful  in  consul- 
tation." l 

His  opposition  to  slavery,  above  referred  to,  rests 
largely  upon  this  principle.  Slavery,  he  says,  corrupts 
the  population  and  leads  to  idleness  and  degeneracy 
in  the  free  population  —  an  argument  used  against  this 
institution  when  it  was  struggling  for  its  life  in  its  last 
stronghold. 

Thus,  the  labor-theory  of  Campanella,  though  very 
imperfect,  contains  several  modern  notions  concerning 
the  length  of  the  labor-day.  He  advocated  a  shorter 
day.  He  advised  schemes  for  self-improvement  for  the 
leisure  time.  Slavery  was  opposed  because  it  led  to 
idle,  vicious  habits.  No  moral  standards  are  laid  down. 
The  problems  are  not  discussed  as  having  distinct 
ethical  import,  social  utility  being  the  sole  test  applied. 
No  reference  is  made  to  any  rights  inhering  in  the  laborer 
or  in  the  slave.  The  main  consideration  is  that  the 
state  be  not  harmed,  nor  the  social  manners  corrupted. 
The  criteria  applied  to  actions  are  public  welfare  and 
social  expediency. 

6.  The  question  of  the  demand  and  supply  of  labor 
is  but  briefly  discussed.  Of  the  nature  of  wants,  the 
extent  of  the  market,  and  kindred  questions  he  has  said 
1 "  City  of  the  Sun,"  p.  239. 


174      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

little.  Enough  is  said  to  show  that  he  believed  that 
labor  employed  four  hours  daily  would  supply  all  the 
necessities,  but  few  of  the  luxuries  of  life.  This  is  in 
line  with  sound  socialistic  doctrine.  Reduce  all  society 
to  the  grade  of  ordinary  labor  and  the  demand  for  luxu- 
ries would  be  much  lessened.1 

Labor  is  not  employed  to  supply  foreign  markets. 
His  theory  involves  a  self-sufficing  industrial  state,  — 
a  state  producing  all  it  needs  and  little  more.  Hence 
commerce  was  little  fostered  in  the  "City  of  the  Sun." 
Exchange,  in  so  far  as  allowed,  was  a  simple  form  of 
barter.  Campanella  was  opposed  to  money  and  its 
use,  and  believed  a  system  of  natural  economy  with 
barter  was  preferable. 

7.  In  speaking  of  the  form  of  political  organization 
advocated  by  Campanella,  it  is  well  to  recall  that  he  was 
a  citizen  of  an  Italian  city,  and  that  the  structure  most 
familiar  to  him  was  the  Italian  city-state.  As  in  the 
earlier  centuries  the  dramatic  conditions  in  Italy  had 
inspired  Dante  and  furnished  a  theme  to  the  great  poet- 
philosopher  Machiavelli,  so  in  the  seventeenth  century 
conditions  could  well  suggest  the  principles  of  govern- 
ment advanced  by  Campanella.  Though  an  advocate 
of  absolute  social  equality  arising  from  common  property 
he  was  devoted  to  absolutism  in  government. 

1  Rodbertus,  "  Overproduction  and  Crises."  Introduction  by 
Professor  Clark,  London,  1898,  pp.  16-17. 


THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA  175 

A  feature  of  considerable  interest  was  that  within 
limitations  the  government  was  elective.  The  magis- 
trates were  elected,  choice  being  limited  to  those  whose 
training  in  the  arts  and  sciences  made  them  most 
competent  to  rule.  The  chief  magistrates  must  be 
above  thirty-five  years  of  age.  If  eminently  fitted,  they 
held  office  for  life.  Citizenship  was  limited  to  men  of 
over  twenty  years,  who  formed  an  assembly  not  unlike 
the  Ecclesia  of  Clisthenes. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  will  appear  that  the 
governing  body  in  the  state  depended  neither  upon  an 
aristocracy  of  wealth  nor  of  birth.  Some  new  prin- 
ciple, therefore,  must  serve  as  selective  for  the  governing 
classes.  This  the  author  finds  in  the  realm  of  science. 
Campanella  wished  to  establish  an  aristocracy  of  edu- 
cation and  put  the  control  of  society  into  their  hands. 
The  teachers  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  he  urged,  are  best 
fitted  to  choose  the  rulers  in  the  different  departments. 
That  higher  education  unfits  men  for  practical  duties 
and  political  services  he  denies,  while  at  the  same  time 
he  condemns  the  hereditary  principle  of  selection. 
"We,  indeed,  are  more  certain  that  such  a  very  learned 
man  has  the  knowledge  of  governing  than  you  who  put 
ignorant  persons  in  authority  and  consider  them 
suitable  merely  because  they  have  sprung  from  the 
rulers  or  have  been  chosen  from  a  powerful  faction."  * 

1  "City  of  the  Sun,"  p.  229. 


1/6      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

Campanella  has  the  utmost  confidence  in  the  trained 
mind  in  public  life,  and  has  no  confidence  in  heredity 
as  a  selective  principle.1 

8.  There  has  been  perhaps  no  political  principle 
more  generally  accepted  nor  more  often  acted  upon  than 
that  of  centralization  of  political  power.  Historical 
development  has  brought  with  it  the  suppression  of 
local  patriotism  and  local  pride  in  view  of  a  larger 
grouping.  This  principle  has  been  recognized  from 
the  formation  of  the  Delian  Confederation  down  to  the 
organization  of  the  German  Empire.  In  these  instances, 
as  in  countless  others,  this  spirit  of  particularism  has 
been  most  destructive  to  perfect  socialization  and 
complete  national  unity.  Advocates  of  a  more  liberal 
policy  and  of  a  larger  social  unity,  from  Miltiades  down 
to  Bismarck,  have  not  hesitated  to  weaken  or  destroy 
this  local  spirit  which  was  a  foe  to  the  centralizing  pro- 
cess. Such  friends  of  consolidation  have,  however, 
generally  dealt  with  politically  organized  bodies  such  as 
small  kingdoms,  free  cities,  semi-sovereign  states,  and 
the  like ;  few  have  had  the  hardihood  to  fall  back  of 
these  and  interfere  with  the  socializing,  or,  as  some 
say,  the  de-socializing  force  of  the  family-group. 

The  author  of  the  "  City  of  the  Sun"  did  not  overlook 
the  fact  that  in  the  abandonment  of  private  property, 
of  family  life,  and  the  attendant  desire  for  inheritance, 

1  Cf.  The  reasoning  of  Plato,  "Republic,"  Bk.  VI. 


THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA  177 

he  had  undermined  the  foundations  of  society  and 
broken  some  of  the  strongest  bonds  of  social  unity. 
In  meeting  this  situation  he  reveals  some  interesting 
social  philosophy.  He  has  a  definite  theory  of  social 
unity.  Campanella  was  too  wise  to  propose  the 
destruction  of  the  existing  social  forces  without  meeting 
the  inevitable  question  as  to  the  motives  necessary  to 
industrial  endeavor;  he  was  too  thoughtful  to  banish 
the  common  centres  in  which  social  interests  might 
gather  and  not  consider  the  probability  of  finding  a 
new  basis  of  social  equilibrium. 

In  his  theory  of  social  unity,  Campanella  partly 
follows  Plato.  When  discussing  the  family  and  its 
place  in  the  state,  Plato  condemns  the  family  as  an 
obstacle  to  the  perfect  devotion  of  the  citizen  to  the 
state.  Banish  family  life  and  the  citizen  has  no  cause 
for  pride,  no  object  of  devotion,  no  stimulus  to  effort 
and  sacrifice  except  the  state.  The  state,  as  an  in- 
stitution, is  then  without  a  rival.  More  than  once  has 
this  principle  had  historical  confirmation.  It  was 
evidenced  in  the  unconquerable  spirit  of  Sparta  in 
Plato's  day.  It  was  in  the  plan  of  Hildebrand  when  he 
enforced  celibacy  among  the  clergy  of  Germany; 
and  to  this  general  theory  the  Italian  monk  was  no 
stranger.  He  had,  indeed,  given  warning  against  the 
dissension  and  disunion  that  were  weakening  and 
threatening  Italy  and  Spain.  As  a  celibate  monk  he 


SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

was  devoted  to  the  Holy  Church  only.  The  recent 
history  of  Italy  was  not  wanting  in  examples,  as  Guelph 
and  Ghibelline  struggled  for  mastery,  and  great  families 
with  their  unbridled  ambitions  threatened,  even  de- 
stroyed, the  unity,  and  threatened  the  very  existence  of 
the  Italian  state. 

It  is,  then,  not  much  wonder  that  Campanella,  de- 
voted to  one  supreme  organization,  should  have  op- 
posed those  forces  tending  to  disunion,  and  among  them 
considered  the  family  as  an  enemy  to  close  social  unity. 
He  condemns  the  family  as  the  source  of  self-love. 
Dishonesty  arises  in  the  state,  since  to  acquire  property 
and  honor  for  the  family  statesmen  will  be  led  to  grasp 
at  the  property  of  the  state  and  misuse  public  office. 
One  would  think  he  wrote  of  the  twentieth  instead  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  and  of  the  United  States  in- 
stead of  Naples.  He  sums  up  his  thought  as  follows, 
"  But  when  we  take  away  self-love,  there  remains  only 
love  for  the  state."  l 

A  second  feature  in  his  theory  recalls  an  interesting 
part  of  the  argument  of  Aristotle.  It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  in  his  "Ethics,"  Aristotle  places  great  em- 
phasis upon  friendship  as  a  principle  of  social  unity  and 
cooperation.2  Campanella,  while  briefly  discussing  the 

1 "  City  of  the  Sun,"  p.  225. 

*" Ethics,"  Ch.  IX.  Cf.  Adam  Smith,  "Theory  of  Moral  Senti- 
ments," expressing  the  same  views. 


THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA  179 

family,  shows  his  sympathy  with  this  theory.  As  has 
been  stated,  love  based  upon  sex  or  filial  devotion  had 
no  place  in  his  system.  There  is,  however,  one  type 
of  affection  which  he  considers  a  true  social  force. 
"  Moreover  that  love  born  of  eager  desire  is  not  known 
among  them,  only  that  born  of  friendship."  * 

To  the  objection  that  with  a  society  based  on  com- 
munism, mutual  helpfulness,  so  often  the  basis  of 
friendship  and  of  social  interdependence,  would  be 
lacking  (people  having  neither  the  need  nor  the  power 
to  aid),  Campanella  wisely  remarks  that  material 
interests  are  not  the  only  ones  in  society,  nor  is  their 
absence  the  destruction  of  friendship.  "Friendship  is 
recognized  among  them  in  war,  in  infirmity,  and  in  the 
art  contests  whereby  they  aid  one  another."  2 

The  theory  of  Campanella  was,  moreover,  open  to 
another  objection:  the  one  which  in  ancient  times 
Aristotle  used  with  such  force  against  Plato.  Aristotle 
had  urged  that  with  selfish  personal  motives  removed, 
under  a  system  of  common  property,  industry  would 
suffer,  and  what  was  everybody's  business  would  be 
nobody's  business.3  Campanella,  in  restating  the 
position  of  Aristotle,  expresses  in  a  very  modern  form 
the  chief  objection  to  socialism:  "Under  such  circum- 
stances no  one  will  be  willing  to  labor  when  he  expects 

1  "City  of  the  Sun,"  p.  237.  2  Ibid.,  p.  226. 

'Aristotle,  "Politics,"  Jowett's  translation,  Vol.  I,  p.  30. 


180      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

to  live  from  the  labor  of  others."  *  Admitting  this 
difficulty,  he  believes  that  the  consciousness  of  union 
with  a  larger  social  aggregate  will  supply  motive,  and 
that  industry  will  not  decline.  "But  I  declare  to  you 
that  they  burn  with  so  great  a  love  for  their  fatherland 
as  I  could  scarcely  have  believed  possible."  2  Cam- 
panella  urged  that  a  society  based  upon  common 
property  had  equal  chances  of  success  with  one  founded 
on  private  property. 

The  subject,  however,  may  be  approached  from  a 
different  view  point.  The  strength  of  the  motive  to 
labor  need  only  be  proportionate  to  the  onus  of  labor. 
In  the  system  of  Campanella  labor  is  considered  neither 
severe  nor  dishonorable.  All  labor  is  honorable,  and 
hence  no  class-distinctions  can  arise  from  the  nature  of 
the  employment.  The  society  described  is  one  where 
all  are  employed,  and  where  idleness  alone  is  condemned. 
"Wherefore  no  one  thinks  it  lowering  to  wait  on  table 
or  to  work  in  the  kitchen  or  fields."  3  Labor,  in  its 
ideal  state,  is  a  part  of  civic  duty,  and  obloquy  attaches 
to  idleness  as  it  does  to  the  neglect  of  civic  activity. 
"Those  occupations  that  require  the  most  labor,  such 
as  working  in  metals  and  building,  are  the  most  praise- 
worthy among  them."  *  Here,  then,  is  a  new  type  of 
nobility,  —  a  nobility  based  upon  toil,  an  aristocracy  of 
labor. 

1  "City  of  the  Sun,"  p.  225.  8  Ibid.,  p.  237. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  225-226.  *  Ibid.,  p.  246. 


THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA  l8l 

9.  This  argument  from  Campanella  rests  upon  that 
idea  of  labor  which  was  so  much  enlarged  on  by  the 
great  French  socialist,  Fourier.  Campanella  hoped  to 
so  adapt  employment  to  inclination  and  to  capacity 
that  labor  would  be  freed  of  much  of  its  pain  and  sac- 
rifice. This  was  a  part  of  his  scheme  for  maintaining 
the  efficiency  of  labor  when  th$  strong  motive  of  indi- 
vidual gain  had  been  removed. 

This  coordination  of  powers  and  occupation  began 
in  the  schools  where  the  youths  were  trained  in  those 
lines  chosen  because  of  fitness  and  inclination.  Men 
of  lesser  intellect  were  kept  in  agricultural  pursuits; 
those  of  peculiar  powers  were  put  at  the  arts  and  sciences. 
Those  who  at  like  age  showed  similar  tastes  and  facul- 
ties were  so  classified  industrially  as  to  bring  harmony 
to  the  state.1  By  this  means,  he  hoped  to  avoid  that 
anarchy  in  the  industrial  world  due  to  a  bad  distribu- 
tion of  the  supply  of  labor.  According  to  Campanella, 
there  is  possible  such  an  adjustment  of  the  labor- 
supply  that  none  will  avoid  labor  because  it  is  either 
dishonorable  or  distasteful.  In  this  theory  is  expressed 
the  hope  of  social  unity,  of  individual  satisfaction,  and  of 
industrial  efficiency. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  theory  of  Campanella 
stands  in  marked  contrast  to  the  theory  of  selfishness  or 
the  theory  based  upon  the  concept  of  the  "economic 

1  Ibid.,  p.  234. 


1 82      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

man."  The  "economic  man"  was  man  viewed  clearly 
from  the  individualistic  standpoint;  Campanella's 
concept  of  man  is  gained  by  seeing  him  in  his  social 
attitude  —  man  a  mere  function  of  society.  These 
characters  are  about  equally  mythical.  A  system  of 
social  philosophy  built  upon  either  idea  is  untrue 
to  the  facts.  Man  never  has  been,  probably  never  will 
be,  so  egoistical  as  classical  economics  assumed.  Man 
may  never  be  so  highly  socialized  as  Campanella  pic- 
tured him.  Each  theory  has  its  lessons  as  to  the 
possibilities  of  socialism.  The  theory  of  Campanella 
suggests  many  things  concerning  the  possible  limitations 
on  human  selfishness.  His  was  a  most  attractive  dream 
of  a  peaceful  society,  composed  of  very  highly  socialized 
members.  The  teaching  of  classical  economics  has 
its  valuable  warnings  touching  those  obstacles  to  that 
happy  state  whose  primary  feature  was  an  absence  of 
selfishness. 

10.  The  teachings  of  Campanella,  thus  briefly 
sketched,  display  a  bold  thinker,  for  his  day  and  place, 
as  well  as  a  man  of  sound  social  and  political  judgment. 
For  one  writing  from  the  cloister,  he  possesses  clear 
insight  into  the  facts  of  society  and  government.  The 
romance,  "  City  of  the  Sun,"  must  be  classed  as  one  of 
the  pioneer  socialistic  documents.  What  he  has  said 
is  not  great  in  quantity  but  is  very  rich  in  suggestive- 
ness.  He  saw  and  appreciated  certain  principles 


THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA  183 

since  laid  hold  of  and  worked  into  the  system  of  modern 
socialism.  In  his  teachings  on  the  possibility  of  social 
reorganization  he  follows  that  type  of  interpretation 
which  had  been  dominant  for  two  thousand  years.  He 
combined  in  an  interesting  manner  a  knowledge  of 
practical  affairs  with  a  subtle  philosophic  insight  and 
a  keen  metaphysical  sense. 

ii.  As  has  been  intimated,  there  exist  some  interest- 
ing points  of  comparison  between  the  social  teachings 
of  the  two  philosophers,  Campanella  and  Bacon. 
What  Bacon  had  to  say  on  social  life  was  left  in  his  short 
but  interesting  fragment,  the  "New  Atlantis."  In  this, 
he  gave  the  general  outlines  of  a  perfect  social  state. 

Bacon  was  a  statesman,  philosopher,  man  of  affairs, 
and  a  contemporary  of  the  Italian  monk.  From  the 
first,  he  was  inclined  toward  politics  and  statecraft. 
He  believed  a  life  devoted  to  the  creation  of  a  perfect 
social  state  was  the  loftiest  type  of  life.  After  devoting 
himself  for  a  time  to  social  study,  he  turned  toward 
philosophy  and  abandoned  his  social  schemes.  The 
"New  Atlantis"  was  written  at  the  same  time  as  the 
"City  of  the  Sun,"  though  it  seems  improbable  that 
their  illustrious  authors  ever  met  or  were  aware  of  each 
other's  theories  or  social  studies. 

It  has  often  been  lamented  that  for  various  reasons 
certain  great  writers  did  not  complete  the  works  they 
had  begun;  as  when  William  Archer  Butler  left  un- 


1 84      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

completed  his  history  of  philosophy,  after  writing  two 
brilliant  volumes ;  or  when  Henry  Buckle  laid  aside  his 
pen  after  writing  his  remarkable  "Introduction  to  a 
History  of  Civilization  in  England,"  not  having 
reached  his  main  theme.  The  same  regrets  may  be 
expressed  that  Bacon  never  finished,  as  he  expected  to 
do,  a  great  political  masterpiece.  What  he  has  left  in 
"New  Atlantis"  shows  what  the  nature  of  his  thinking 
was,  and  illustrates  the  application  of  his  philosophic 
thought  to  social  science.1 

Bacon  occupied  much  the  same  position  in  English 
thought  as  did  Campanella  in  Italian.  As  the  latter  had 
opposed  the  method  and  teachings  of  Aristotle,  so  had 
Bacon  stood  out  against  the  deductive,  abstract  reason- 
ing of  his  time.  In  his  social  theory  he  advocated  com- 
plete social  reconstruction.  He  treated  society  as  a 
structure  and  not  as  an  organism;  a  thing  to  be  con- 
trolled by  social  and  not  by  natural  law.  He  also  ex- 
aggerated the  influence  of  the  social  will,  consciously 
ordering  social  progress.  It  was  therefore  natural  that 
he  should  place  a  large  importance  upon  knowledge. 
He  advocated  the  creation  of  a  social  condition  where 
the  control  should  be  in  the  hands  of  philosophers. 

12.  The  opening  of  the  "New  Atlantis"  recalls  the 

1  It  was  the  intention  to  treat  fully  the  movement  in  England 
during  the  Commonwealth.  The  main  character  has  been  ably 
discussed  by  L.  H.  Berens  in  the  "Digger  Movement  in  the  Days 
of  the  Commonwealth,"  London,  1906. 


THE  SOCIALISM   OF  CAMPANELLA  1 8$ 

features  marking  other  works  of  its  kind.  Under  the 
influence  of  an  age  of  discovery,  Bacon  pictures  a  com- 
pany driven  to  an  unknown  land.  There  the  usual 
fear  of  the  natives  terrorizes  them  —  a  fear  born  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  habits  of  civilization.  The  usual 
detail  is  indulged  in  describing  the  material  aspects  of 
this  terra  incognita.  The  same  happy  disillusionment 
occurs  upon  finding  the  barbarian  life  so  mild  and  their 
manners  so  peaceable.  " New  Atlantis"  is  a  city  where 
ideal  conditions  exist.  Nature,  as  pictured  there,  is 
most  prodigal  in  her  care  for  the  physical  comfort  of 
the  happy  citizens.  The  formation  is  fitted  to  every 
need,  the  material  conveniences  standing  in  marked 
contrast  to  the  London  of  Bacon's  day,  or  even  the 
modern  city. 

According  to  Bacon,  the  end  of  government  is  the 
welfare  of  the  people.  The  king  of  the  ideal  state  must 
rule  by  virtue  of  his  ability  and  his  inclination  to  rule 
for  the  commonwealth.  The  state  should  be,  to  a  large 
extent,  self-sufficient.  Foreign  influence  must  be  care- 
fully guarded  lest  the  oft-recorded  invasions  of  vice, 
luxury,  and  evil  manners  should  here  corrupt  the  popu- 
lation. In  his  discussion  of  the  marriage  relation, 
Bacon  indulges  in  a  bitter  satire  on  the  social  morals 
of  his  age.  He  intimates  that  in  the  society  of  his  day 
marriage  was  but  a  cloak  for  immorality;  and  that  the 
family  was  only  a  corrupt  bargain,  "  wherein  is  sought 


1 86      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

alliance  or  position  or  reputation  with  some  desire 
(almost  indifferent)  of  issue."  l  As  in  the  "City  of  the 
Sun, "  the  end  sought  through  marriage  is  to  supply  a 
strong  offspring  to  the  state.  Any  union  threatening 
social  welfare  is  forbidden. 

The  "New  Atlantis"  presents  the  picture  of  a  perfect 
social  state  viewed  from  a  scientific  standpoint.  It  is 
the  philosophers'  state.  It  is  the  dream  of  a  philosopher 
who  believed  that  the  highest  purpose  of  the  state  was 
to  secure  intellectual  equality.  Bacon's  society  was 
established,  not  upon  a  communism  of  wealth,  but  upon 
a  communism  of  knowledge.  He  conceived  of  a  cul- 
tural state,  pure  and  simple.  His  highest  concept  of 
good  was  of  the  intellectual  type.  His  communism 
meant  the  largest  possible  participation  of  all  the  mem- 
bers in  the  benefits  of  society.  Society  should  be  so 
reconstructed  as  to  grant  to  all  the  blessings  of  general 
culture. 

There  is,  moreover,  a  very  decided  materialistic 
color  to  the  last  part  of  his  work.  There  is  found  there 
a  very  remarkable  classification  of  those  things  which 
minister  to  the  physical  wants  of  man.  The  teaching  of 
Bacon  is  more  Epicurean  than  is  that  of  Campanella. 
If  the  writings  of  Campanella  are  full  of  the  doctrine 
of  high  thinking,  Bacon's  theories  have  room  for  the 
praise  of  good  living.  His  interesting  fragment  is 

1  "New  Atlantis,"  Morley  edition,  p.  198. 


THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA  187 

rich  in  practical  wisdom;  it  abounds  in  suggestions 
touching  almost  every  phase  of  useful  science  and 
progressive  art.  The  great  purpose,  however,  of  all 
social  effort  of  the  "New  Atlantis,"  Bacon  sets  forth  in 
one  sentence,  showing  the  spirit  and  the  high  purpose 
of  the  writer.  "  But  thus  you  see  we  maintain  a  trade, 
not  for  gold,  silver,  or  jewels,  not  for  silks  nor  for  spices, 
nor  for  any  commodity  of  matter,  but  only  for  God's 
first  creature,  light ;  to  have  light,  I  say,  of  the  growth  of 
all  parts  of  the  world."  l 

13.  This  thesis  pretends  to  be  an  introduction  to  the 
study  of  socialism,  which  comments  on  certain  writers 
who  appear  as  its  precursors  and  pioneers.  What  im- 
portance, then,  has  Campanella  in  these  incipient  stages  ? 
Of  him  a  French  critic  says :  "  Campanella,  Harrington, 
and  F£nelon  are  the  successors  of  Plato,  of  the  '  Repub- 
lic,' of  Savonarola,  and  of  Thomas  More,  and  the  fore- 
runners of  Rousseau,  Mably,  Fourier,  and  of  Saint- 
Simon."  2  Sigwart  calls  him  the  forerunner  and 
founder  of  a  system  of  socialistic  thought.8  Kirchen- 
heim  calls  him  the  founder  of  radical  socialism,  who  saw 

1  Ibid.,  p.  191. 

2  Franck,  "  Rgformateurs  et  publicistes,  de  PEurope,"  Vol.  II,  pp. 
150-151. 

3 "  Er  ist  derjenige  der  zuerst  ein  vollkommen  socialistisches 
System  wissenschaftlich  begriindet  hat,  an  Geist  und  Consequenz 
den  meisten  seiner  Nachfolger  weit  iiberlegen."  —  Sigwart,  op.  cit., 
p.  151. 


1 88      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

clearly  the  conflict  between  the  individual  and  soci- 
ety.1 

The  "City  of  the  Sun"  is  one  of  the  clearest  expres- 
sions of  a  radical  type  of  social  reform  and  is  logical  in 
the  extremes  to  which  it  goes.2  It  is  the  clearest  and 
most  rational  scheme  for  a  perfect  social  state  thus  far 
written.3  In  the  scheme  of  control  suggested,  Campa- 
nella  has  embodied  most  of  the  ideas  of  the  hierarchy 
of  Saint- Simon.  Their  schemes  of  organization  are 
strikingly  similar. 

14.  The  social  teachings  of  Campanella,  then,  may 
be  briefly  described  in  the  first  place  as  reactionary, 
a  feature  he  had  in  common  with  Thomas  More. 
He  shows  this  attitude  on  various  occasions.  He  had 
struggled  to  bring  back  the  power  of  the  Catholic  clergy, 
as  the  Jesuits  had  done  in  the  counter-reformation. 
The  new  and  interesting  feature  of  his  plan  was  an 
attempt  to  bring  the  church  up  to  the  new  demands 
and  to  fit  it  to  meet  the  new  economic  conditions.  This 
Campanella  hoped  to  do  by  giving  it  a  deeper  social 

1  "  Mais  la  pauvrete"  de  1'individu  doit  avoir  pour  resultat  la  richesse 
de  la  collectivity  et  c'est   ainsi   que  Campanella  a  e"te  defendu  de 
nos  jours  par  Fourier,  Bebel,  et  d'autres,  seulement  aucun  ne  1'a  sur- 
pass^ en  audace."  —  Kirchenheim,  op.  cit.,  p.  99.     Cf.  Franck,  op. 
cit.,  Vol.  II,  p.  7,  where  he  calls  Campanella  the  founder  of  the  sys- 
tem of  Saint-Simon. 

2  Sudre,  "Histoire  du  Communisme,"  p.  198. 

s  Lafargue,  "  Die  Vorlaufer  des  neueren  Socialismus,"  p.  492. 


THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA  189 

and  economic  significance.  His  was  not  state  —  but 
like  the  Jesuits'  scheme  —  it  was  church  socialism. 
These  men  saw  a  very  important  thing  much  empha- 
sized to-day,  the  weight  of  economic  causes;  to  some 
extent  they  appreciated  the  importance  of  the  economic 
basis  of  society.  They  saw  that  attention  must  be  paid 
to  industrial  and  economic  conditions,  and  that  these 
form  the  foundations  upon  which  a  solid  political 
structure  must  rest.1 

The  communism  of  Campanella  was  not  of  a  gross, 
material  kind,  so  often  and  doubtless  rightly  condemned. 
It  meant,  as  Schaffle  remarks,  more  than  a  mere  divi- 
sion of  goods.  It  involved  a  general  and  equal  partici- 
pation of  all  in  the  products  of  culture  and  in  the  results 
of  social  progress.  He  taught  that  all  should  share 
alike  in  those  social  institutions,  and  that  there  should 
be  social  cooperation  all  along  the  line.  Industries,  he 
said,  should  be  open  to  all,  and  this  at  a  time  when 
labor-castes  ruled  industrial  society  and  narrow  favorit- 
ism was  dominant  over  Europe.  All  institutions  were 
to  be  entered  by  those  fitted  for  them  by  nature  or  by 
culture.  His  was  a  most  comprehensive  type  of  com- 
munism, including  the  communism  of  women.  It  was 

1  The  same  thing  was  true  of  the  English  writers  of  this  time. 
"Alone  of  all  his  contemporaries,  Harrington  understood  that  the 
causes  of  the  great  upheaval  which  had  been  witnessed  needed  to 
be  sought  in  the  underlying  social  and  economic  transformation." 
—  Gooch,  op.  cit.,  p.  292.  Cf.  Kirchenheim,  op.  cit.,  p.  151. 


1QO      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

directed  toward  breaking  up  the  home  with  its  exclu- 
siveness,  the  classes  with  their  privileges,  and  absolute 
government  with  its  oppressiveness. 

Campanella  advocated  certain  sane  ideas  on  social 
organization'.  Some  of  these  are  to-day  in  force ;  some 
await  fulfilment,  others  were  but  dreams.  He  advo- 
cated free  and  compulsory  education  for  all  classes. 
He  advised  changes  in  the  school  curriculum  that 
would  bring  more  practical  results.  He  laid  special 
emphasis  on  the  need  of  care  in  the  propagation  of 
offspring.  Therefore  he  abandoned  marriage  as  based 
upon  sentiment  and  provided  for  the  social  control  of 
the  family,  whereby  fitness  and  not  capricious  fancy 
should  be  the  basis  of  sexual  union.  The  underlying 
principle  of  his  social  scheme  was  that  society  can 
never  be  a  success  till  the  social  will  completely  domi- 
nates the  individual  will.  Egoism  is  a  mortal  foe  of 
social  welfare  and  harmony,  and  hence  those  institu- 
tions that  foster  selfishness  and  egoism,  such  as  property 
and  the  family,  must  be  sacrificed  to  the  welfare  of  the 
larger  social  group. 

Attention  has  also  been  called  to  his  theory  of  the 
devotion  to  a  larger  social  aggregate.  This  had  been 
a  part  of  the  theory  of  the  Papal  See  since  the  time  of 
Gregory  the  Great  in  the  eleventh  century.  The  same 
reasoning  had  led  to  the  system  of  celibacy  among 
the  German  monks,  established  in  order  to  free  them 


THE   SOCIALISM   OF  CAMPANELLA  191 

from  the  limiting,  narrowing  influences  of  home  life, 
and  to  keep  them  from  entangling  alliances,  dangerous 
to  Italian  domination.1  That  Campanella  drew  much 
of  his  inspiration  from  this  practice  and  tradition  seems 
highly  probable. 

In  the  scheme  of  Campanella,  then,  the  state  invades 
the  sphere  of  individual  action  and  initiative  in  its 
minutest  details.  The  importance  of  the  individual 
arises  from  his  attachment  to  the  larger  group ;  and  he 
is  most  useful  when  he  most  completely  conforms  to 
the  social  will. 

Campanella  put  forth  few  views  that  might  be  called 
economic.  What  he  says  is  scattered  throughout  his 
works  and  is  not  of  great  interest.  On  the  theory  of 
distribution  he  has  no  clear  ideas;  indeed,  with  a 
system  of  communism,  it  would  seem  none  is  needed. 
As  is  the  situation  in  connection  with  all  similar 
schemes,  however,  the  problem  of  distribution  still 
perplexes.  In  fact,  the  further  these  writers  depart 
from  the  natural  laws  governing  in  the  economic  world, 
the  more  difficult  does  the  situation  appear.  Campa- 

1  On  this  reference  may  be  made  to  the  general  works  and  to  one 
work  by  Henry  C.  Lea.  On  this  he  says :  "  By  the  efforts  of  Gregory, 
the  monk  was,  in  theory  at  least,  separated  irrevocably  from  the 
world  and  committed  to  an  existence  which  depended  solely  upon 
the  church.  Cut  off  from  family  and  friends,  the  door  closed  behind 
him  forever,  and  his  only  aspiration  beyond  his  own  wants  could  but 
be  for  his  abbey  and  church,"  etc.  —  Henry  C.  Lea,  "Historical 
Sketch  of  Sacerdotal  Celibacy  in  the  Christian  Church,"  pp.  117-118. 


SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

nella  taught  that  the  individual  should  be  rewarded  by 
society  according  to  his  capacity,  and  the  work  done 
was  the  test  of  capacity.  In  the  last  analysis,  however, 
the  wants  of  each  were  determined  by  society,  as  none 
could  live  in  luxury  and  none  should  be  allowed  to 
want.  In  this  respect,  his  theory  was  very  similar  to 
that  of  the  later  French  socialists.1 

It  may  be  very  reasonably  asked  what  all  this  mys- 
ticism and  metaphysical  theory  contains  that  is  of 
interest  to  the  social  student  ?  Has  not  Campanella,  in 
his  way,  laid  hold  of  a  great  fact  in  social  thought  and 
interpretation  ?  He  has  set  forth  the  fact,  hailed  as  an 
acquisition  of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  social  de- 
velopment is  only  one  phase  of  the  general  cosmical 
process.  Obscured  by  much  confusing  symbolism, 
this  idea  appears  in  the  teachings  of  Campanella. 
Mingled  with  much  metaphysical  and  theological  ob- 
scurity it  is;  lacking  almost  entirely  in  any  clear 
inductive  analysis  it  may  be ;  yet  his  work  foreshadows 
an  attempt  at  a  synthetic  treatment  of  scientific  thought. 
Take  as  an  illustration  a  quotation  from  a  sonnet: 
"The  universe  is  a  great  and  perfect  animal,  statue 
of  God  and  made  in  his  image."  "  We  are  on  the  earth 
which  is  a  grand  animal  on  a  greater  one  still  as  the 
vermin  on  our  bodies."  2 

1  Adolphe  Franck,  "  Rtfonnateurs, "  etc.,  Vol.  II,  p.  194. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  165. 


THE  SOCIALISM  OF  CAMPANELLA  193 

Campanella  may  be  said  to  be  the  only  philosopher  in 
Italy  to  whom  the  liberation  of  the  human  mind  in  the 
sphere  of  religion  and  philosophy  had  an  application 
to  the  conditions  in  society  and  the  state.  To  some 
extent,  at  least,  he  attempted  to  apply  the  new  thought 
to  the  social  world.  With  him  the  Reformation  issued 
in  a  more  or  less  clear  social  scheme.  As  Thomas 
More  had  given  a  social  direction  to  the  new  thought 
in  England,  so  in  Italy  Campanella  was  the  one  man 
to  whom  a  comprehensive  scheme  of  social  reform 
suggested  itself. 

Other  philosophers  were  engaged  in  scholastic  dis- 
putes; statesmen  were  struggling  for  the  spoils  of 
office;  the  Calabrian  monk  alone  devoted  his  energies 
to  creating  a  scheme  of  social  reorganization.  Among 
all  the  Italian  states,  oppressed  by  foreign  rulers  and 
exploited  by  despotic  power,  Calabria  alone  arose  in 
revolt  and  demanded  a  new  social  and  political  organi- 
zation. The  soul  of  this  struggle  was  the  Calabrian 
monk  —  Campanella. 

Judged  by  ordinary  standards,  the  life  and  teachings 
of  Campanella  may  seem  to  mean  little  to  social  progress 
and  amelioration.  Few  to-day  know  him  or  his  work. 
The  words  of  Royce,  however,  certainly  apply  to  him : 
"Surely  no  statesman  ever  founded  an  enduring  social 
order;  one  may  add  that  no  statesman  ever  produced 
even  temporarily  the  exact  social  order  that  he  meant  to 


194      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

found.  No  human  life  ever  attained  the  glorious  dreams 
of  its  youth.  But  still  the  saints  and  sages  are  not 
failures,  even  if  they  are  forgotten.  There  is  an  endur- 
ing element  about  them.  They  did  not  wholly  die." 1 
1  Royce,  "Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy,"  p.  6. 


CHAPTER  VI 

EIGHTEENTH- CENTURY   RADICALISM  IN   FRANCE 

i.  Morelly  is  one  of  the  unknown  writers.  Of  his 
life-history  data  are  extremely  rare  and  on  essential 
points  the  records  are  of  very  uncertain  value.  He  was 
born  at  Vitry-le-Francois  at  an  unknown  date.  Judg- 
ing from  the  opening  of  his  literary  activity,  he  was  born 
about  1720,  thus  being  a  contemporary  of  Rousseau, 
Voltaire,  and  the  Encyclopaedists.  As  a  mark  of  his 
obscurity  stands  the  fact  that  his  social  theories  and 
writings  were  for  a  long  time  attributed  to  Diderot. 
This  was  done  in  the  biography  of  Diderot  in  "France 
Litte'raire"  and  also  in  the  "Biographie  Universelle." 
Biographers  also  speak  as  if  there  were  two  writers 
bearing  the  name  Morelly.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there 
was  only  one,  the  other  similar  name  being  in  all 
probability  Morelli  or  Morellet.1  His  leading  works 
were  published  in  connection  with  the  Encyclopaedists 
and  in  this  way  he  came  to  be  associated  with  Diderot. 
The  biography  of  Morelly  is,  therefore,  very  limited, 
and  very  little  is  known  of  his  nature  or  of  his  works  or 

1  Villegardelle,  Introduction,  "Code  de  la  Nature";  cf.  Lichten- 
berger,  "Le  Socialisme  au  XVIIIe  Siecle,"  p.  106. 

195 


196     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

views  except  in  so  far  as  they  can  be  culled  from  his 
writings. 

These  place  Morelly  among  the  great  philosophic 
and  political  authors  of  his  time  in  France.  Of  him 
one  writer  says:  "With  the  rebirth  of  socialist  ideas 
the  work  attributed  to  Diderot,  but  really  from  the 
pen  of  Morelly,  took  on  a  new  and  enlarged  importance. 
Modern  writers  do  not  hesitate  to  acknowledge  him 
with  enthusiasm  as  a  forerunner  of  their  theories."  * 
Another  states  that  he  ranks  higher  in  analytic  and 
constructive  power  than  many  of  the  better- known  and 
acknowledged  writers  before  and  since.2  Morelly 
helped  to  systematize  the  theories  of  earlier  writers  and 
to  pave  the  way  for  the  later  and  more  developed 
socialism  in  France  as  advanced  by  Mably,  Owen,  and 
Saint-Simon.  The  importance  of  such  writers  as 
Morelly  can  be  readily  underestimated. 

As  a  precursor  of  the  French  Revolution  and  a  fore- 
runner of  that  more  systematic  and  aggressive  French 
socialism,  he  belongs  to  that  quiet,  unobtrusive  school 
of  writers  which  did  so  much  of  the  bold,  original 
thinking  of  the  prerevolutionary  times.  He  was  one 
of  those  independent  spirits  who,  in  obloquy  and  neg- 
lect, broke  with  the  past,  ignored  traditions,  theo- 
logical and  political  prejudices,  and  proceeded  to  study 
human  nature  in  its  original  condition.  He  turned 

1  Lichtenberger,  op.  cit.,  p.  105.         *  Villegardelle,  op.  cit. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM   IN   FRANCE     197 

from  vacant  superficialities  and  threadbare  generalities 
back  to  first  principles.  He  broke  through  the  dead 
and  deadening  crust  of  effete  institutions  and  of  anti- 
quated pretensions  and  got  back  to  man.  In  his 
method  he  was  highly  introspective,  and  as  a  prelude  to 
his  social  analysis  he  undertook  a  study  of  the  human 
soul.1  His  studies  were  of  that  introspective,  subjective 
type  which  Reich  says  was  characteristic  of  the  radical 
thought  which  led  to  the  French  Revolution.2 

2.  Following  such  writers  as  Locke  and  Hobbes  in 
his  general  method,  he  reached  far  different  conclusions. 
He  studied  that  same  primitive  character  after  which 
they  all  inquired.  Other  writers,  starting  out  with  the 
same  general  concepts,  but  varying  in  their  intent  and 
purpose,  surrounded  Morelly ;  and  their  line  of  thought 
being  similar,  they  undoubtedly  influenced  him. 
Among  this  group  of  radical  writers  to  whose  teachings 
must  be  traced  the  roots  of  the  French  Revolution,  the 
most  prominent  and  important  was  Simon  Nicolas 
Henri  Linguet.3  Another  writer  of  this  school  far  less 
brilliant  than  Linguet  and  of  less  importance  than 

'Morelly  early  published  "L'Essai  sur  le  coeur  humain, "  Paris 

1745- 

1  Reich,  "  Foundations  of  Modern  Europe,"  London,  1904,  pp.  148, 
149. 

3  On  Linguet  see  Lichtenberger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  77-131;  also  "Le 
Socialisme  et  la  Revolution  francaise";  and  Jean  Cruppi,  "Un 
avocat  journaliste  au  i8me  Siecle,  Linguet,"  Paris,  1895. 


1 98     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

Morally  was  Jean  Claude  Chappius.  Beaurieu  should 
also  be  mentioned  in  this  connection.1  He  was  one  of 
the  ardent  advocates  of  the  theory  of  a  state  of  nature, 
commending  its  simplicity  and  its  happiness.  His 
theories  were  closely  allied  to  the  thought  of  Rousseau, 
and  his  work  "L'Eleve  de  la  Nature"  is  much  like 
Rousseau's  "Emile."2  Many  such  obscure  writers 
were  in  touch  with  the  still  more  obscure  Morelly  and 
helped  to  contribute  to  that  mass  of  radical  theorizing 
which  did  so  much  to  revolutionize  eighteenth-century 
France.  Names  of  almost  household  familiarity  are 
also  connected  with  his.  Montesquieu  and  Rousseau, 
Diderot  and  Condorcet,  with  men  of  far  more  revolu- 
tionary thought,  as  Helve'tius  and  D'Holbach,  were 
all  associated  with  Morelly  in  that  radical  school  of 
thought.  It  was  such  men,  working  silently  and  un- 
observed, clothing  their  thought  often  in  the  garb  of 
fiction  and  romance,  who  did  so  much  to  create  revo- 
lutionary sentiment  and  to  make  a  new  order  possible. 
The  writings  of  Morelly  on  society  appeared  in  the 
form  of  fiction  to  escape  the  severe  censorship  of  the 
press  then  prevalent  in  France.  This  seems  one  lead- 
ing reason  why  serious  philosophers  resorted  so  much 
to  the  form  of  romance.  Under  this  form  were  often 

1  These  writers  have  been  treated  in  a  very  clear  manner  by 
Andre"  Lichtenberger,  "Le  Socialisme  Utopique."    Paris,  1898. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  59. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE     199 

veiled  the  most  radical  attacks  on  existing  institutions ; 
while  these  writers  pointed  in  the  most  hopeful  manner 
toward  a  better  social  structure.  True,  some  works 
were  allowed  to  circulate  ffeely  whose  purpose  was 
perfectly  clear;  many,  however,  were  condemned  and 
burned  during  the  eighteenth  century.1 

In  the  field  of  general  philosophy  Morelly  left  one 
work  of  considerable  importance,  "L'Essai  sur  1'esprit 
humain,"  which  appeared  in  1743.  Here  he  published 
the  theories  of  education  and  of  the  development  of  the 
human  intellect  which  have  been  attributed  to  Jacotot. 

In  1745  appeared  his  work  "L'Essai  sur  le  cceur 
humain."  This  was  the  beginning  of  his  social  studies. 
Dealing  with  the  human  passions,  it  contained  some  of 
the  ideas  further  elaborated  in  the  extensive  system  of 
Fourier.  Morelly  advanced  his  social  theories  in  two 
very  important  works.  The  first,  the  "Basiliade," 
appeared  in  1753  as  a  poetic  piece  of  heroic  fiction,  in 
which  he  lays  down  his  theories  in  a  most  general 
manner.2  His  second  work  is  shorter  and  more  definite, 
and  bears  the  title  "Code  de  la  Nature";  a  very  sig- 
nificant title  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  "natural 
rights"  theories  of  the  time,  on  which  his  work  is 

1  For  a  list  of  condemned  works  see  Rocquain,  "  L'Esprit  reVo- 
lutionaire  avant  la  Revolution,  1715-1789,"  Paris,  1878.  Here  are 
enumerated  between  five  and  six  hundred  works  thus  condemned. 

2"Naufrage  des  lies  flottantes  ou  Basiliade  du  celebre  Pilpai." 


2OO      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

based.1  The  "Basiliade"  was  written  from  1751- 
1753.  So  severely  was  this  criticised  that  he  defended 
his  theories  in  his  stronger,  more  dogmatic  work,  "  Code 
de  la  Nature."2  The  year  in  which  the  "Code" 
appeared  saw  Rousseau's  noted  work  of  a  similar 
nature,  "Discours  sur  1'ine'galite'  des  conditions," 
while  his  "  Contrat  Social"  followed  almost  immediately. 
Three  years  before  the  appearance  of  the  work  of 
Morelly,  Montesquieu  had  begun  his  inductive  study 
df  society  and  brought  a  mighty  fund  of  historic  knowl- 
edge to  bear  on  social  problems,  attempting  an  explana- 
tion of  social  progress  in  terms  of  physical  geography 
and  material  environment.  In  respect  to  method, 
Morelly  followed  Rousseau  rather  than  Montesquieu. 
In  his  first  work  Morelly  is  more  deductive  and  de- 
structive ;  in  his  second,  he  is  more  inductive  and  con- 
structive. Morelly  was  more  constructive  than  Rous- 
seau ;  more  radical  and  less  scientific  than  Montesquieu. 
Certain  other  works  fall  into  this  group  partly 
because  of  similarity  as  to  fundamental  principles  and 
partly  because  they  approach  society  from  the  view  point 
of  the  social  reformer.  Among  these  may  be  men- 
tioned the  important  work  by  D'Holbach,  "Nature  and 

»Cf.  Cliffe  Leslie,  "Essays  in  Political  and  Moral  Philosophy," 
Dublin,  1879,  pp.  150-151. 

2  "  Code  de  la  Nature,  ou  le  veritable  esprit  de  ses  lois  de  tout 
temps,  neglige  ou  me"connu,"  1755. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM   IN   FRANCE     2OI 

her  Laws."  These  he  considered  in  their  applications 
to  man's  social  happiness.  Condorcet  in  his  "  Outlines 
of  the  Progress  of  the  Human  Mind"  is  more  historical 
in  method  and  reaches  his  conclusions  by  induction. 
Helve'tius  in  "System  of  Nature"  follows  a  very  ma- 
terialistic type  of  social  interpretation  in  contrast  to  the 
then  dominant  social  system  based  so  largely  upon 
tradition,  authority,  and  superstition.  It  was  in  such 
teaching  that  the  most  serious  dangers  to  the  sta- 
bility of  the  old  regime  arose,  whether  in  the  realm  of 
religion,  politics,  or  society  at  large.  The  "Origins 
of  the  Human  Understanding,"  by  Cond iliac,  bears  the 
same  general  stamp  and  has  the  same  revolutionary 
tendency  in  the  field  of  philosophy.  A  survey  of  the 
literature  of  the  time  reveals  the  fact  that  much  of  it 
contemplates  the  overthrow  of  the  existing  social  order 
by  denying  its  philosophic  basis  and  by  upsetting  faith 
in  those  traditions  and  institutions  on  which  the  society 
of  the  ancient  regime  had  rested. 

Of  these  writers  Morelly  was  the  one  who  saw  most 
clearly  the  need  of  a  new  system  to  replace  the  old,  and 
was  the  only  one  who  can  be  called  constructive.  He 
alone  went  so  far  as  to  outline  a  new  social  structure, 
meeting,  as  he  thought,  the  new  needs  if  the  ancient 
society  should  be  overthrown.  The  others  were 
critical,  analytic,  and  destructive ;  Morelly  laid  down  a 
definite  plan  for  new  social  foundations  and  may  be 


202    SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

called  the  first  constructive  socialist  in  France.  He 
was  followed  by  such  builders  as  Saint- Simon,  Fourier, 
Louis  Blanc,  and  Cabet.1 

One  fact  that  cannot  be  too  much  emphasized  is  the 
very  close  relationship  between  the  eighteenth-century 
social  theories  and  the  general  philosophy  then  dominant. 
It  may  be  said  that  up  to  quite  recent  times  social  think- 
ing and  theorizing  were  largely  incidental  and  may  be 
called  a  by-product  in  the  laboratory  of  the  philosopher 
or  the  theologian.2  It  is  hence  of  the  utmost  importance 
that  a  glance  be  taken  at  the  general  philosophic  scheme 
in  which  the  social  element  was  only  one  of  the  factors. 
While  this  is  not  the  place  to  speak  at  any  great  length 
of  the  sceptical  philosophy  which  came  to  dominate 
France  during  the  eighteenth  century,  some  discussion  of 
this  field,  however  cursory,  is  perhaps  justified. 

The  animus  of  much  of  this  radical  teaching  was  the 

1  As  has  been  before  pointed  out,  a  very  general  interest  was 
awakened   in   this   prerevolutionary   literature   when    this    modern 
French  school  was  developing.     Evidence  of  this  lies  in  the  fact  that 
translations  of  these  works  appeared  in  different  languages  before 
1850.     The  " Code"  of  Morelly  was  translated  into  German  by  Arndt 
in  1846.     Morelly's  social  writings  were  edited  in  annotated  form  by 
Villegardelle  in  1841.     It  is  thus  evident  that  this  early  literature  at- 
tracted attention  later,  and  was  influential  in  helping  to  shape  the 
modern  socialistic  thought. 

2  This  process  of  differentiation  is  very  interesting  to  note.     In 
England  economics  seems  to  have   branched  out  from  theology; 
in  France  it  has  long  been  classed  under  the  law  and  has  not  yet  gained 
entire  independence, 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM   IN  FRANCE     2O3 

desire  to  overthrow  the  existing  forms  of  control;  it 
meant  an  attack  upon  the  absolute  monarchy,  a  protest 
against  an  absolute  church,  and  a  revolt  against  an 
equally  absolute  social  tradition,  law,  and  custom. 
This  thinking,  then,  had  revolution  as  its  purpose,  and  it 
had  revolution  as  its  results.  The  writings  of  Rousseau 
may  be  taken  as  typical  of  the  attack  against  the  state ; 
Meslier  and  Voltaire  early  opened  war  upon  religion 
and  the  church.  D'Holbach,  Helve'tius,  and  Volney 
led  the  attack  in  the  broad  field  of  general  philosophy ; 
while  Morelly  and  Mably  represent  the  most  violent 
enemies  of  economic  order. 

In  England  the  writings  of  Adam  Smith  present  a 
milder  form  of  protest  against  the  old  regime,  and,  while 
not  adhering  to  the  purposeful  revolutionary  group,  he 
did  more  perhaps  than  any  of  them  to  overthrow  the 
old  and  usher  in  a  new  system  based  upon  the  most  ag- 
gressive form  of  individualism.  On  the  other  hand 
there  sprang  up  a  very  conservative  school  in  France, 
whose  writings  had  a  marked  effect  upon  the  revolu- 
tionary thought  of  the  time,  and  whose  work  it  was  to 
combat  the  more  radical  theories.  Physiocracy  was  a 
great  conservative  force  in  French  thought.  Denying 
to  the  state  the  right  to  control  industry,  it  was  a  bulwark 
of  the  ancient  customs  and  institutions;  and  in  such 
writers  as  Mercier  the  old  order  found  firm  and  able 
advocates. 


2O4      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

It  may  be  said  in  general  that  there  are  two  lines  of 
philosophic  inquiry  in  the  period  under  discussion; 
social  students  and  metaphysicians  alike  indulge  in  both 
types  of  inquiry.  One  realm  belongs  more  particularly 
to  the  metaphysicians,  where  students  inquired  into  the 
origin  and  nature  of  things ;  the  other  set  of  facts  falls 
into  the  sphere  of  psychology,  and  that  of  a  very  deduc- 
tive type,  dealing  with  the  origin  and  nature  of  man.1 
This  period  is  marked  by  a  most  earnest  inquiry  after 
these  essentials.  Both  fields  were  being  seriously  investi- 
gated in  France,  and  both  yielded  material  for  the  rev- 
olutionary propaganda.  The  group  of  materialistic 
philosophers,  including  Helve'tius,  Volney,  and  D' Hoi- 
bach,  followed  one  line,  hoping  to  overthrow  the  then 
dominant  system  of  thought.  The  other  line  of  thought 
was  pursued  by  Condillac,  Condorcet,  and  Diderot,  and 
led  more  directly  to  a  revolutionary,  social,  and  political 
philosophy.  The  radical  social  teaching  of  that  time 
and  of  the  later  decades  is  based  on  certain  of  these 
general  philosophic  concepts.  Certain  of  these  ideas  of 
the  prerevolutionary  writers  have  a  close  connection 

1  "H  faut  distinguer  deux  sortes  de  me"taphysique.  L'une  am- 
bitieuse  veut  percer  tous  les  mysteres:  la  nature,  Pessence  d'etres,  les 
causes;  Pautre  plus  retenue,  proportionne  ses  recherches  a  la  fai- 
blesse  de  1'esprit  humain,"  etc.  —  Condillac,  "Essai  sur  Porigine  des 
connoissances  humaines ;  ouvrage  ou  Pon  reduit  a  un  seul  principe 
tout  ce  qui  concerne  Pentendement  humain,"  Amsterdam,  1746, 
Vol.  i,  p.  2. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE     2O$ 

with  the  philosophic  principles  of  later  socialism  and 
merit  brief  notice  here. 

3.  It  has  come  to  be  very  much  the  mode  to  connect  a 
materialistic  view  of  life  with  the  teachings  of  socialism. 
This  charge  rests  not  merely  upon  the  fact  that  social- 
ism in  its  efforts  toward  social  betterment  has  the  material 
welfare  of  the  social  classes  uppermost  in  thought,  but 
it  also  has  reference  to  the  philosophic  foundations  of 
socialism.  It  is  probable  that  the  statement  viewed  in 
either  way  has  much  truth  in  it. 

No  claim  is  here  made  that  the  materialism  of  D  'Hoi- 
bach,  Helve*tius,  and  the  like  is  the  same  as  that  of  Weit- 
ling,  Hegel,  or  Karl  Marx.  It  is  well  known  that  they 
differ  widely,  perhaps  fundamentally.  The  attempt  is  not 
made  here  to  trace  the  changes  this  thought  underwent 
from  the  eighteenth  to  the  nineteenth  century.  What 
can  be  said  with  perfect  truth,  however,  is  that  the 
radical  social  theories  of  the  eighteenth  century  root 
themselves  in  the  materialistic  thought  of  that  age  as  the 
more  modern  socialistic  teachings  find  their  philosophic 
basis  in  the  materialism  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
modified  though  this  latter  may  be.1  The  close  relation- 
ship of  this  early  teaching  Karl  Marx  himself  set  forth.2 

Angels,  "Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,"  London,  1892, 
pp.  38  et  seq. ;  Seligman,  "The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History," 
N.  Y.,  1902,  Chs.  2  and  3. 

2 "  Genau  und  im  prosaischen  Sinne  zu  reden,  war  die  franzosische 
Aufklarung  des  18  Jahrh uncle  rts  nicht  nur  ein  Kampf  gegen  die 


206      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

"Yet  even  here  Marx  shows  the  essentially  mechan- 
ical nature  of  the  older  French  materialism  and 
points  out  how  the  philosophic  materialism  of  Helve'tius 
and  D'Holbach  led  to  the  socialism  of  Babeuf  and 
Fourier."  *  Around  this  point  considerable  discussion 
has  taken  place.  One  thing,  however,  is  sure,  that  the 
social  theory  of  the  earlier  period  sprang  from  the  soil 
of  materialism,  —  not  a  historical  materialism,  but  a 
type  that  made  man  a  part  of  the  material  universe, 
governed  solely  and  unalterably  by  her  laws,  sharing  the 
general  natural  process  and  limited  by  the  physical 
constitution  of  things.  The  social  and  political  revo- 
lutions in  France  and  in  Germany  offered  the  same 
violent  opposition  to  the  orthodox  teachings  in  science, 
in  the  state,  and  in  the  church.2  It  was  this  form  of 
materialism  that  constituted  the  philosophical  en- 
vironment of  Morelly  and  his  associates.  Certain  of 
these  writings  were  very  influential  in  helping  to  over- 
throw the  old  conditions  and  to  lay  the  foundations  of 
much  later  radical  thinking.3 

bestehende  Religion  und  Theologie,  sondern  ein  ausgesprochener 
Kampf  gegen  die  Metaphysik  des  siebzehnten  Jahrhunderts  und 
gegen  alle  Metaphysik." — "Die  Heilige  Familie,"  p.  196. 

1  Seligman,  op.  tit.,  pp.  29-30. 

2  Engels,  "Ludwig  Feuerbach  und  der  Ausgang  der  klassischen 
deutschen  Philosophic  mit  anhang :  Karl  Marx  iiber  Feuerbach  vom 
Jahre  1845,"  Stuttgart,  1895,  p.  5. 

8  "  Fourrier  geht  von  der  Lehre  der  franzosischen  Materialisten  aus. 
Die  Babouvisten  waren  rohe,  uncivilisirte  Materialisten,  aber  auch 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM   IN   FRANCE     2O/ 

4.  Perhaps  the  clearest  statement  of  these  theories 
comes  from  the  pen  of  D'Holbach.  He  puts  the  case 
baldly  as  follows :  "  In  short,  morals  and  politics  will  be 
equally  enabled  to  draw  from  materialism  advantages 
which  the  dogma  of  spirituality  can  never  supply,  of 
which  it  even  precludes  the  idea.  Man  will  ever  re- 
main a  mystery  to  those  who  obstinately  persist  in 
viewing  him  with  eyes  prepossessed  by  metaphysics,  he 
will  always  be  an  enigma  to  those  who  shall  pertina- 
ciously attribute  his  actions  to  a  principle  of  which  it 
is  impossible  to  form  to  themselves  any  distinct  idea."  l 
One  such  quotation  shows,  long  before  Marx  or  Buckle, 
a  studied  intention  to  give  a  very  decided  materialistic 
direction  to  social  interpretation.  He  further  says : 
"If  the  intellectual  faculties  of  man  or  his  moral  quali- 
ties be  examined,  according  to  the  principles  here  laid 
down,  the  conviction  must  be  complete  that  they  are  to 
be  attributed  to  material  causes."  2 

Of  a  more  marked  type  is  the  materialism  as  taught 
by  Helve*tius.  He  advances  in  the  boldest  form  the 

der  entwickelte  Communismus  datirt  direkt  von  dem  franzosischen 
Materialismus.  Dieser  wandert  namlich  in  der  Gestalt  die  ihm  Helve"- 
tius  gegeben  hat  nach  seinem  Mutterlande,  nach  England  zurtick. 
Bentham  griindet  auf  die  Moral  des  Helvetius  sein  System  des 
wohlverstandnen  Interesses,  wie  Owen,  von  dem  System  Bentham 
ausgehend,  den  Englischen  Communismus  begriindet."  —  Marx, 
"Die  Heilige  Familie,"  p.  207. 

1  D'Holbach,  "  Nature  and  her  Laws,  as  applicable  to  the  hap- 
piness of  man  living  in  society,"  London,  1816,  Vol.  I,  p.  211. 

2  Op.  tit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  215. 


208      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

theory  of  the  domination  of  the  material  forces  and 
their  close  control  over  man's  actions,  considered  in- 
dividually and  socially.  He  denies  all  supernatural 
causes  and  emphasizes  only  the  real,  the  tangible. 
"  Man  is  the  work  of  nature  and  subject  to  her  laws 
from  which  he  cannot  free  himself,  nor  even  exceed  in 
thought."  *  He  denied  any  distinction  between  man  as 
a  moral  and  as  a  physical  being.  Man  is  controlled  by 
necessity ;  but  this  is  physical  and  not  moral  necessity. 
Outside  the  realm  of  physical  necessity  there  is  no 
control.2  There  is,  therefore,  in  the  teaching  of  Helve"- 
tius,  no  room  for  crime  nor  its  punishment.  Man  is  not 
responsible  to  society,  ruled  as  he  is  by  nature  whose 
laws  are  absolute  over  him.  Society,  being  merely  a 
group  of  separate  individuals,  is  likewise  subject  to  the 
absolute  laws  of  nature.  The  ends  of  society  are  those 
proposed  by  nature,  and  these  alone  man  is  obliged  to 
carry  out.  The  end  of  life,  both  social  and  individual,  is 
happiness.  "The  final  end  of  man  is  self-preservation 
and  rendering  existence  happy.  .  .  .  The  spring  of 
all  action  in  man  are  corporeal  pains  and  pleasures."  3 
Nowhere  is  the  pain-and-pleasure  philosophy  stated 

1 "  True  Meaning  of  System  of  Nature,"  translated  from  the  French, 
London,  1820,  Ch.  I. 

'  Ibid.,  Ch.  VI. 

s  "System  of  Nature,"  Ch.  IX;  also,  "Treatise  on  Man,  his  in- 
tellectual faculties  and  his  education,"  translated  from  the  French, 
London,  1810,  Ch.  X. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE     209 

more  unreservedly.  "Corporeal  pleasure  and  pain  are 
the  real  and  only  springs  of  all  government." 

The  ends  of  society  and  law  should  be  to  control  the 
members  so  that  social  good  will  follow;  but  the  final 
test  will  be  the  happiness  of  the  individual.  "It  is  by 
promoting  the  happiness  of  other  men  that  we  engage 
them  to  promote  our  own."  So  that  while  much  of  our 
activity  seems  socially  directed,  it  rests  finally  upon 
selfishness,  and  the  facts  which  determine  social  action 
are  tested  by  the  pleasure  and  pain  of  the  individual. 
Evil  is  necessary  in  man,  that  he  may  know  the  good ; 
and  man  at  first  did  evil  that  he  might  add  to  his  happi- 
ness. The  end  of  government  and  society  is  found  in 
immediate  benefit  to  the  individual;  and  these  are 
measured  in  terms  of  pleasure  and  pain.  Man's 
actions  and  choice,  while  governed  by  necessity,  are  still 
a  result  of  his  reason.  There  is,  therefore,  a  rational 
element  in  human  action.  The  final  test  of  all  action  is 
nature,  tempered  by  reason. 

Helve'tius  already  perceives  the  effect  of  physical 
environment  in  giving  rise  to  the  differences  of  peoples. 
The  moist,  soggy  air  of  England  makes  a  people  of 
duller  wits  and  of  much  less  vivacity  than  in  Spain, 
where  a  bright  dry  air  has  had  its  effect  upon  individual 
and  national  character.1  Such  was  the  thought  of  one 
of  the  most  influential  of  the  contemporaries  of  Morelly, 

1  "Treatise  on  Man,"  English  translation,  1810,  p.  161. 
P 


210      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

on  the  nature  of  man  and  of  things.  It  illustrates  what 
has  been  pointed  out  as  the  great  revolutionary  tendency 
of  the  time  to  break  with  the  past,  to  abandon  authority 
and  tradition  and  return  to  a  study  of  man  in  his  primi- 
tive qualities. 

In  the  writings  of  such  psychologists  as  Condillac  l 
and  Condorcet 2  appear  the  same  tendencies  toward 
the  materialistic  teaching.  The  writings  of  De  Maistre 
are  of  less  importance  in  this  regard.  They  are  largely 
theological  in  tone  and  deal  only  slightly  with  the 
materialistic  or  revolutionary  aspects  of  the  case.3 

These  ideas  which  enter  so  largely  into  the  revo- 
lutionary thought  of  the  early  period  appear  in  the 
socialistic  writings  after  the  Revolution.  The  tendency 
to  found  a  social  science  upon  a  basis  of  materialism; 
to  explain  social  phenomena  in  terms  of  material 
science ;  and  to  discover  the  lines  of  physical,  moral,  and 
social  causation  in  the  same  sphere,  —  this  tendency 
marks  the  writings  of  Saint-Simon,  August  Comte, 
and  other  Frenchmen.  Of  this  Ferraz  says:  "The 
physicism  of  Saint-Simon  and  the  positivism  of  Comte 
are  in  close  accord  with  the  materialism  of  D'Holbach 
and  of  Lamettrie,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  'attraction 

1  "  Essai  sur  1'origine  des  connoissances  humaines."     1746. 

*  "  Esquisse  d'un  tableau  historique  des  progres  de  1'esprit  humain, 
suivie  de  reflexions  sur  Pesclavage  des  negres."  Paris,  1822. 

3  Ferraz,  "Socialisme,  Naturalisme  et  Positivisme,"  Paris,  1882, 
p.xvi;  Flint,  "History  of  the  Philosophy  of  History,"  N.Y.,  1894,  p.  342. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE     211 

passionelle'  is  based  upon  the  philosophy  of  Hel- 
vdtius.  In  many  ways  the  present  socialism  rests 
upon  the  sensualism  of  the  eighteenth  century."  l 

There  is  a  more  restricted  sense  in  which  the  writings 
and  actions  of  this  age  may  be  called  materialistic. 
This  period  was  marked  by  the  growth  of  the  desire 
for  material  welfare.  It  is  now  coming  to  be  more 
fully  appreciated  that  the  French  Revolution  was  caused 
as  well  by  bad  harvests  and  empty  stomachs  as  by 
radical  philosophy  and  revolutionary  teaching.2  In 
the  literature  here  cited  the  test  of  happiness  is  largely 
a  material  one.  Helvetius  said  the  stomach  and  sexual 
passion  were  the  main  motives  leading  men  to  action. 
The  age  was  marked  by  that  type  of  individual  philoso- 
phy, wherein  the  welfare,  i.e.  the  pleasure  and  pain  of  the 
individual,  was  the  final  test  of  the  good  or  evil  in  the 
social  structure.  The  pleasure-and-pain  philosophy 
has  this  as  its  corollary,  that  individualism  and  the 
demand  for  material  welfare  go  hand  in  hand.3 

5.  Growing  logically  out  of  the  foregoing  material- 
istic view  is  another  feature  peculiar  in  some  of  its 
aspects  to  the  age  of  Morelly;  i.e.  the  emphasis  laid 
upon  the  metaphysical  concepts  of  the  "law  of  nature," 
of  "natural  rights,"  and  their  corollaries. 

1  "  Socialisme,  Naturalisme  et  Positivisme,"  p.  xv. 

2  Cf .  Lichtenberger,  "  Le  Socialisme  et  la  Revolution  f rancaise." 

3  Held,"  Zwei  Biicher  zur  socialen  Geschichte  Englands,"  1881,  p.  85. 


212      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

It  is  almost  a  commonplace  to  speak  of  the  natural 
rights  theory  as  being  dominant  at  this  time  in  France. 
All  through  the  literature  of  that  period  are  scattered 
the  phrases,  "state  of  nature,"  "natural  rights,"  "man 
of  nature,"  "natural  law."  These  phrases  came  most 
freely  from  the  pens  of  social,  political,  and  psycho- 
logical writers  of  the  time.  The  tendency  then  domi- 
nant was  to  study  man  himself,  independent  of  environ- 
ment, of  culture,  of  civilization  itself,  and  of  all  the  effects 
and  influences  of  the  centuries  of  historical  evolu- 
tion. 

The  period  of  Morelly  was  thoroughly  dominated  by 
this  state  of  nature  philosophy.  These  natural  rights 
were  presumed  to  be  the  natural  and  inalienable  heritage 
of  every  person  born  into  society.  Even  though  born 
into  conventional  society,  he  came  as  heir  to  these 
rights. 

The  general  theory  of  a  state  of  nature  and  of  the 
laws  supposed  to  govern  there  are  too  familiar  to  require 
extensive  reference.  These  doctrines  were  made  particu- 
larly prominent  in  the  writings  of  Rousseau,  especially 
in  his  "Contrat  Social."  They  appear  in  a  more 
abstract  and  scientific  form  in  the  philosophical  works 
of  that  radical  group  already  discussed,  including 
Helve*tius,  D'Holbach,  Condorcet,  and  others ;  while  it 
is  the  accepted  premise  of  such  socialist  writers  as 
Mably,  Morelly,  Boissel,  and  Babeuf.  This  same 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE     213 

theory  was  taken  up  by  the  early  American  radicals 
and  appropriated  to  their  revolutionary  purposes. 

The  conception  of  man  in  a  state  of  nature,  accepted 
by  the  early  French  socialists,  was  much  different 
from  that  advanced  by  Hobbes.  The  "  man  of  nature," 
discussed  by  the  French  writers,  is  pictured  as  living 
in  a  state  of  peace,  happiness,  and  undisturbed  equality. 
The  natural  man,  as  set  forth  by  Hobbes,  was  in  a  state 
of  constant  warfare,  where  groups  struggled  in  con- 
ditions of  anarchy  till  fear  and  despair  drove  them  to 
organize  society  and  to  submit  to  government.  Not 
that  they  freely  sought  conventional  society  or  yielded 
gladly  to  the  sovereign  will  of  such  society  so  organized 
as  to  express  its  will  through  the  organs  of  the  state, 
but  that  they  betook  themselves  to  these  as  a  refuge 
from  worse  things. 

The  French  theory  corresponds  more  nearly  with 
that  of  Locke.  These  writers  hold  that  men  enter  into 
society  and  establish  and  submit  to  a  government,  not 
so  much  to  avoid  a  state  of  war,  as  to  gain  larger  bene- 
fits through  association  and  to  reach  positive  ends  not 
attainable  through  individual  effort.1  This  idea  of 
nature  and  man's  place  in  it  forms  one  of  the  main 
premises  in  the  socialistic  thought  of  the  age  of 
Morelly. 

While  this  doctrine  is  not  confined  in  its  influence  to 

1  Cf.  Helve*tius,  "True  Meaning  of  the  System  of  Nature,"  p.  24. 


214      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

the  prerevolutionary  period,  and  did  not  find  its 
origin  there,  it  is  given  a  peculiar  conciseness  and  a 
greater  emphasis  in  these  radical  works.  The  most 
unreserved  statement  of  the  theory  is  found  in  the 
"System  of  Nature,"  where  Helve'tius  clearly  states 
the  relation  of  man  to  nature  and  her  laws.  Of  man's 
place  in  nature  he  says:  "Man  is  a  physical  being, 
subject  to  nature,  and  hence  to  necessity.  .  .  .  The 
necessity  that  governs  the  physical  governs  the  moral 
world,  where  everything  is  also  subject  to  the  same 
law.  .  .  .  Notwithstanding  the  system  of  human  liberty, 
men  have  universally  founded  their  systems  upon  neces- 
sity alone."  *  His  conception  of  man  is  not,  however, 
lowered  because  of  his  subjection  to  natural  law; 
human  actions  in  society  are  not  then  made  more 
servile  or  less  noble  because  of  this  control.  Man 
and  society  both  conform  to  this  higher  law  of  nature. 
Man  loses  nothing  in  self-respect,  in  feelings  of  re- 
sponsibility, nor  in  his  desire  for  virtue,  as  a  result. 
Punishment  would  cease  as  a  social  function  and 
would  follow  through  the  execution  of  the  law  of  na- 
ture. Vice  and  disorder  would  decrease.  Thus  does 
Helve'tius  restate  the  old  theory  of  man's  relation 
to  nature. 

In  various  forms  this  theory  is  found  in  the  radical 
literature   down    to    the    Revolution.    Adam    Smith 

1  "True  Meaning  of  the  System  of  Nature,"  pp.  16-17. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM   IN   FRANCE     21$ 

accepts  it.1  Condorcet  enlarges  on  it.2  Turgot  clearly 
expresses  his  acceptance  of  this  doctrine,  which  must  be 
viewed  as  one  of  the  premises  of  the  social  theories  in  the 
age  of  Morelly.3  This  idea  of  a  state  of  nature  and  its 
corollaries  form  as  important  a  tenet  in  the  argument  of 
the  radical  social  thinkers  as  it  did  with  the  political 
doctrinaires.  It  gave  ground  for  the  fundamental 
principle,  as  important  to  one  set  of  revolutionists  as  to 
the  other,  that  men  are  born  free  and  equal ;  a  notion 
with  as  great  consequences  for  the  social  order  as  it  had 
for  the  permanence  of  the  existing  political  regime. 
"Almost  all  the  ancient  philosophers  and  politicians 
laid  it  down  as  a  principle  that  men  are  born  unequal ; 
that  nature  has  created  some  to  be  free,  others  to  be 
slaves."  4  The  eighteenth-century  theory  as  to  man's 
equality  repudiates  the  doctrine  first  advanced  by 
Aristotle,  and  taught  that  all  men  are  by  nature  free  and 
equal.  Carried  out  in  the  realm  of  politics  this  makes 
for  democracy ;  in  the  realm  of  industry  and  economics 
it  would  mean  socialism. 

6.  A  very  natural  corollary  to  this  type  of  thinking 
was  an  almost  total  disregard  for  history.  Writers  of 
this  class  were  decidedly  unhistorical  in  their  method  of 

1  Hasbach,  "  Untersuchungen  iiber  Adam  Smith  und  die  Entwick- 
lung  der  politischen  Oekonomie,"  pp.  322  et  seq.,  Leipzig,  1891. 

2"Esquisse  d'un  tableau  historique  des  progres  de  1'esprit 
humain,"  pp.  91  et  seq. 

3  Leon  Say,  "Turgot,"  pp.  43-44. 

4  Volney,  "The  Ruins,"  English  ed.,  1881,  p.  144. 


2l6      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

social  analysis.  They  studied  man  as  a  creature  aside 
from  his  historical  development  and  separated  from 
historical  environment.  To  them  man  was  marked 
by  unchanging  qualities,  and  history  had  little  of  impor- 
tance to  teach  concerning  him  or  his  social  possibilities. 
Against  the  idea  that  man  is  an  historical  product 
stood  the  theory  of  revolution  that  history  had  perverted 
man's  best  faculties,  while  his  truly  social  qualities 
were  those  that  were  native,  inherent,  and  hence  in- 
dependent of  historical  development.1  Human  nature 
remaining  always  essentially  the  same,  mankind  should 
be  organized  in  such  manner  as  would  best  fit  this  type, 
reached  purely  by  a  priori  reasoning.  The  French 
Revolution  was  a  movement  to  which,  then,  history  was 
to  bring  little  or  no  aid.  The  attitude  of  the  radical 
school  was  well  stated  in  the  aphorism  of  the  French 
statesman,  who  said  he  could  learn  nothing  from 
history. 

There  had  as  yet  been  very  little  knowledge,  of  a 
trustworthy  kind,  of  those  conditions  of  life  which  they 
pretended  to  describe.  The  treatment  of  primitive 
society  as  found  in  Cantillon,  whereby  he  attempted 
to  reach  social  origins,  is  a  good  illustration  of  the 
early  research,  well  characterized  by  James  Stewart  as 
"conjectural  history."  Eighteenth-century  social  study, 
very  deductive  in  its  nature,  had  little  use  for  history. 

1  Dunning,  "History  of  Political  Theory,"  Vol.  I,  p.  293. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM   IN   FRANCE 

It  dealt  with  the  pleasing  fiction  of  this  happy  state  of 
nature  and  this  man  of  nature,  "a  natural,  permanent, 
universal  thing";  and  here  there  could  be  no  changing 
history.  Only  the  changeful,  fleeting,  artificial,  could 
pass  through  those  cycles  which  make  history  possible. 
These  writers  viewed  things  with  the  eye  of  a  meta- 
physician, which  sees  things  in  a  static  state  where 
history  is  not  made.1  The  theories  here  discussed  deal 
with  man  and  not  with  men ;  and  man,  thus  conceived 
of,  has  no  history.  These  theories  deal  with  an  ab- 
stract man.  From  Adam  Smith  to  Kant,  from  Rous- 
seau to  Mably,  the  treatises  present  this  interesting 
abstraction.  What  Barres  says  of  Kant  was  equally 
true  of  these  radicals,  "He  addresses  himself  to  an 
abstract  and  ideal  person  always  and  everywhere  the 
same ;  whereas  the  real  man,  the  only  man  we  have  to 
live  with,  varies  according  to  time,  place,  and  race."  2 
The  social  philosophers  also  dealt  with  a  type  of  man 
that  was  not  supposed  to  vary.  He  is  the  natural 
person,  and  as  they  have  stripped  him  of  all  the  effects  of 
the  past  and  taken  him  "  shivering  naked  from  the  hand 
of  nature,"  the  task  of  rebuilding  society  from  top  to 
bottom  need  not  be  so  difficult. 

From  a  practical  as  well  as  from  a  philosophic  cause 
these  reformers  must  deny  the  value  of  history  and 

1  See  Engels,  op.  tit.,  p.  31. 

*Le  Bon,  "The  Psychology  of  Socialism,"  N.  Y.,  1899,  p.  72. 


2l8       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

attempt  to  destroy  its  results.  Of  this  Nitti  remarks: 
"This  was  one  of  the  hardest  problems  the  world  had 
yet  met.  The  question  seemed  to  be,  how  to  make  it 
possible  for  the  masses  to  partake  in  the  benefits  of  a 
society,  where  the  society  itself  rested  chiefly  on  aris- 
tocracy, and  the  traditional  institutions  could  be  safe 
only  when  resting  on  such  a  basis.  In  such  a  case  it 
seemed  natural  that  much  of  the  validity  of  past  develop- 
ment must  be  denied,  in  that  it  shut  the  masses  from  its 
enjoyment ;  one  of  those  historical  institutions  vigorously 
attacked  was  property."  l  Thus  the  coming  either  of 
socialism  or  of  democracy  demanded  the  rejection  of  the 
ancient  structure  and  the  reduction  of  society  to  its 
primitive  elements,  in  order  to  clear  the  ground  and 
allow  the  population  to  flow  freely  from  the  old  into  the 
new  social  and  political  mould.  This  fact  made  the 
position  of  the  radical  reformers  logical  in  rejecting 
history  and  its  results  and  rendered  the  destructiveness 
of  the  French  Revolution  necessary. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  the  type  of  socialism  here 
treated  must  largely  ignore  historical  considerations. 
The  methods  of  reform  suggested  by  the  Utopian 
socialists  make  historical  evolution  particularly  un- 
necessary. They  did  not  look  for  slow  growth  and 
change.  They  did  not  expect  to  pave  the  way  by 
moderate  measure.  Socialism  was  conceived  of  as  a 

1  Nitti,  "Le  Socialisme  Catholique,"  p.  4. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM   IN  FRANCE     2IQ 

finished  state  and  not  as  a  process;  an  end  and  not  a 
means.  Their  view  was  revolutionary  and  not  evolu- 
tionary. With  the  simple  primitive  man  as  a  unit  these 
social  dreamers  hoped  to  construct  de  novo  an  ideal 
society. 

This  meant  that  no  idea  of  social  evolution  entered 
their  thoughts.  Their  "man"  was  to  have  only 
"tendencies,"  and  these  they  conceived  of  as  "social  or 
benevolent  tendencies"  alone.  They  thought  of  human 
nature  as  a  tabula  rasa.  The  theory  of  innate  ideas 
was  rejected.  Morelly  assumed  a  "man  of  nature." 
Rousseau  accepted  the  primitive-man  theory  as  ad- 
vanced by  Mrs.  Behn  and  made  a  "Bon  Sauvage"  the 
hopeful  unit  for  his  social  and  political  reconstruction. 
The  natural  man,  discussed  by  Godwin,  was  one  to 
whom  all  historical  development  meant  nothing. 
Man  was  not  to  grow  out  of  the  past  —  indeed,  was  to 
have  no  vital  connection  with  it.  To  Morelly  the 
effects  of  past  progress  were  especially  pernicious. 
The  whole  attitude  of  eighteenth- century  socialism  was 
antagonistic  to  history  and  inappreciative  of  historical 
progress.1 

As  has  been  indicated,  this  attitude  toward  history  is 
one  of  the  leading  distinctions  between  Utopian  and 

1  "Historical  man  is  always  human  society  and  the  presumption 
of  a  presocial  or  supersocial  man  is  a  creature  of  imagination." 
—  Labriola,  "Socialism  and  Philosophy,"  p.  43. 


220      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

scientific  socialism.  Rodbertus  and  Marx  were  both 
devoted  to  the  historical  method.  Marx  based  his 
whole  system  on  a  study  of  the  historical  evolution 
of  industrial  society.  Of  Rodbertus,  Conner  says: 
"  If  we  distinguish  social  writers  into  those  who  employ 
abstract  and  those  who  employ  historical  analysis 
as  a  means  of  investigation,  Rodbertus  must  certainly 
be  placed  among  the  latter.  History  furnishes  him  with 
the  foundation  on  which  he  builds."  1 

From  the  standpoint  of  these  reformers  the  age  was 
specially  fitted  to  suggest  such  an  attitude  toward 
history.  Conditions  of  political  despotism,  religious 
dogmatism,  and  social  and  industrial  misery  and  wrong, 
were  productive  of  the  spirit  of  radical  innovation  and  led 
to  an  abandonment  of  history  the  most  complete.  The 
results  of  historical  development,  as  seen  in  eigh- 
teenth-century France,  argued  little  for  history  as  a 
guide  or  for  its  products  as  the  basis  of  a  regenerated 
society.  Within  the  pale  of  that  civilization  which 
seemed  the  highest  fruits  of  history,  the  critics  saw 
little  of  inspiration  or  of  promise.  Refuge  was  there- 
fore sought  in  the  vague,  metaphysical  region  of  a 
"state  of  nature."  Here  was  found  the  promising  idea 
of  a  man  of  nature,  living  in  a  simple  state,  enjoying 
certain  primitive  rights,  at  least  free  from  conventional 
wrongs  and  endowed  with  "natural  goodness"  and  with 

1  "The  Social  Philosophy  of  Rodbertus,"  p.  33. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM  IN   FRANCE      221 

the  capacity  of  "perfectibility";  most  happy  con- 
ditions for  the  reformer  as  a  basis  for  an  ideal  social 
state. 

Such  was  the  Utopian  dream  of  the  eighteenth-cen- 
tury metaphysician  in  the  realm  of  social  reform.  It 
corresponds  to  the  idea  entertained  by  the  classical 
economists  when  they  proceeded  in  theory  to  do  wonders 
with  the  myth  of  the  "economic  man"  in  the  sphere  of 
"free  competition."  Very  similar  was  the  use  made  of 
the  two  concepts.  This  man  of  nature  was  free  from 
the  restraints  and  limitations  of  an  artificial  kind, 
which  had  grown  up  with  progress.  Against  the  morals 
of  tradition  and  authority  were  set  the  morals  of  nature. 
Against  the  doctrine  of  the  inherent  evil  of  human 
nature  was  placed  the  dogma  of  man's  native  goodness. 
Opposed  to  the  hampering  regulations  of  the  old  order 
was  the  liberty  of  the  new  age  of  reason;  the  rational 
judgment  opposed  to  the  historic  judgment.  Much 
in  the  same  manner  had  the  classical  economics  fallen 
back  to  the  law  of  nature  in  the  industrial  world,  and  on 
that  basis  had  combated  the  traditional  theories  and  had 
opposed  the  remaining  limitations  of  the  old  system  of 
mercantilism. 

There  is,  however,  another  principle  involved  in  these 
theories,  closely  related  to  the  foregoing.  The  under- 
lying idea  in  this  teaching  was  the  possibility  of  an 
artificial  social  structure.  It  ignores  the  fact  that 


222      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

society  is  an  organism  and,  growing  under  the  operation 
of  natural  economic  laws,  is  dynamic  and  not  static; 
that  it  is  not  the  product  of  closet  philosophers,  but 
develops  in  a  slow  and  continuing  process.  The  idea 
accepted  by  later  socialism  of  the  Marxian  type,  is  that 
society  evolves  into  new  if  not  into  higher  forms,  fol- 
lowing its  own  inherent  laws  and  beyond  the  control  of 
the  members  of  society,  exerted  individually  or  col- 
lectively —  an  idea  which  ill  comports  with  the  philo- 
sophic society-builders  of  any  age. 

The  teachings,  then,  of  this  earlier  socialism  lack  the 
evolutionary  notion,  and  hence  the  idea  of  progress,  as 
now  conceived.  In  fact,  before  the  more  recent  times, 
when  the  study  of  physical  science  has  given  a  scientific 
bent  to  social  study,  there  was  very  little  to  suggest 
progress.  Jowett  says:  "Passing  from  speculation  to 
facts  we  observe  that  progress  has  been  the  exception 
rather  than  the  rule  in  human  history.  And  therefore 
we  are  not  surprised  that  the  idea  of  progress  is  of  a 
modern  rather  than  of  an  ancient  date;  and  like  the 
idea  of  a  philosophy  of  history  is  not  more  than  a  century 
old.  It  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  impressions  left 
in  the  human  mind  by  the  growth  of  the  Roman  Empire 
and  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  to  be  due  to  the  local 
and  political  improvements  they  introduced  into  the 
world ;  and  still  more  in  our  own  century  to  the  idealism 
of  the  French  Revolution  and  to  the  triumph  of  the 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE     223 

American  Revolution;  and  in  a  greater  degree  to  the 
material  prosperity  and  growth  of  population  in  England 
and  America."  l  This  difference  in  attitude  of  the 
French  radicals  marks  the  chief  distinction  between 
the  English  and  French  Revolutions. 

A  brief  study  of  the  documents  of  the  English  Revo- 
lution serves  to  show  that  the  demands  there  made  are 
for  historic  rights;  they  fall  back  to  the  past  and 
demand  their  ancient  liberties  secured  for  centuries  by 
the  constitutions  and  laws  of  England.  As  compared 
with  the  French  Revolution  it  was  superficial  in  nature. 
The  English  radicals  did  not  go  back  of  the  political 
structure.  They  did  not,  with  few  exceptions,  attack 
society.  They  accepted  the  social  fabric  as  a  product 
of  historical  development  and  were  satisfied  to  re- 
construct a  new  political  organization.2  Property, 
the  laws  of  its  holding  and  distribution,  the  family  and 
the  existing  industrial  order  —  all  these  were  left 
intact. 

In  France,  however,  the  whole  movement  was  differ- 
ent. Not  political  but  social  in  its  nature,  it  went 
deeper.  The  demand  in  France  was  not  for  historical 
but  for  natural  rights.  The  metaphysician  and  philoso- 
pher and  not  the  legalist  or  historian  laid  the  basis  of 

1  Introduction  to  "Republic"  of  Plato,  p.  ccxiii. 
1  Cf.  Gooch,  "History  of  English  Democratic  Ideas  in  the  Seven- 
teenth Century,"  Cambridge,  1898,  Ch.  IV. 


224      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

the  French  revolutionary  struggle.  They  did  not  hope 
for  relief  through  a  return  to  ancient  liberties  nor 
historic  rights;  they  looked  for  a  totally  new  social 
reconstruction.  The  French  wished  to  fall  back  of 
organized  society  and  sweep  away  its  fabric  till  nothing 
but  the  individual  remained.  From  this  they  would 
reconstruct  society.  In  this  lay  the  dangerous  feature 
of  the  early  French  thought.  Here  is  seen  its  kinship 
with  socialism.  It  worked  toward  a  great  social 
movement  deep  enough  to  disturb  the  social  founda- 
tions. 

The  radicals  in  France  attacked  the  underlying 
economic  and  industrial  order  and  created  new  social 
classes  and  destroyed  old  ones;  this  necessarily  upset 
the  equilibrium  in  society  and  made  the  Revolution 
necessary.1  From  the  writings  of  Rousseau,  Morelly, 
Mably,  and  the  like  down  to  the  laws  of  the  Assembly 
of  1793  may  be  seen  in  theory  and  in  practice  this  far- 
reaching  attack  on  the  traditional  institutions  and  on 
the  historic  order.  As  Professor  Reich  says:  "The 
changes  in  France  were  tabula  rasa.  It  was  a  Revo- 
lution totally  unlike  the  great  revolutions  of  the  Dutch 
in  1565-1569,  of  the  English  1642-1660,  or  of  the  Ameri- 
can from  1775-1783.  In  no  one  of  these  three  revolu- 
tions were  the  social,  i.e.  the  deeper,  elements  of  the 

1  Cf .  Bamave,  "  Introduction  a  la  Revolution  f  rancaise,"  edited 
by  Be"renger,  London,  1843,  p.  20. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE      22$ 

nation  touched  upon;  all  three  referred  to  political 
issues,  leaving  the  rest  of  the  nation's  organization  un- 
touched." 1  In  France  it  was  intended  that  society  as 
well  as  government  should  receive  a  new  constitution. 
Back  of  the  radical  revolutionary  action  was  this 
thoroughgoing  revolutionary  thought,  part  of  which 
has  been  called  socialistic. 

It  may  then  be  conceded  in  that  so  far  as  socialism 
has  to  do  with  the  abstract  and  unchanging  principles 
of  social  justice,  and  with  the  supposed  immutable 
laws  of  right,  it  would  not  lead  to  an  historical  study  of 
society.  This  much  can  be  said,  that  the  study  of 
social  history  and  the  rise  of  the  evolutionary  doctrines, 
as  accepted  either  by  Hegel  or  Darwin,  must  be  fatal  to 
the  earlier  idealistic  type  of  socialism.  It  is  also  true 
that  modem  state  and  scientific  socialism  has  been 
very  closely  allied  to  the  historical  school  of  economics.2 

Just  what  the  effect  of  the  study  of  history  and  the 
acceptance  of  the  doctrines  of  evolution  have  had  on 
socialism  in  theory  it  is  difficult  to  say.  Karl  Marx, 
after  a  most  profound  study  of  industrial  history,  and 
accepting  the  Hegelian  theory  of  evolution,  abandoned 
the  radical  type  of  socialism  and  founded  scientific 
socialism.  It  was  in  the  light  of  the  evolutionary 
doctrine  that  Herbert  Spencer  wrote  his  most  telling 

1  "Foundations  of  Modern  Europe,"  pp.  118-119. 

2  Rambaud,  "  Historic  d'Economie  Politique,"  Paris,  1900,  p.  326. 

Q 


226      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

defence  of  the  individual  in  his  "Man  versus  the 
State."  In  the  congress  of  scientists  in  Berlin  in  1877 
the  famous  discussion  between  Virchow  and  Haeckel 
involved  the  wisdom  of  socialism  viewed  in  the  light 
of  the  evolutionary  theory  of  Darwin.  The  results 
seemed  to  show  that  a  strict  adherence  to  the  evolution- 
ary doctrine  would  exclude  socialism. 

The  great  scholar  Savigny,  who  first  applied  the 
historic  method  to  the  study  of  law,  was  very  doubtful 
of  the  success  of  extensive  social  control.  On  the 
fluctuating  nature  of  law  he  says,  "Accordingly 
legislation  itself  and  jurisprudence  as  well  are  of  a 
wholly  accidental  and  fluctuating  nature  and  it  is  very 
possible  that  the  law  of  to-day  may  not  be  the  law  of  to- 
morrow." l  After  this  statement  of  the  nature  of  law 
he  says,  "The  conviction  that  there  is  a  practical  law  of 
nature  or  of  reason,  an  ideal  legislation  for  all  times  and 
all  circumstances,  which  we  have  only  to  discover  to 
bring  positive  law  to  perfection,  often  served  only  to 
reconcile  the  views  as  to  the  civil  code  and  growing 
law."  Here  he  examines  the  origins  of  legislation  to 
test  this  idea.  The  general  drift  of  his  discussion  as  to 
the  possibility  of  establishing  permanent  relationships 
through  positive  law  is  unfavorable.  As  to  the  effect 
of  his  study  upon  his  ideas  of  social  control  Ihering 

1  "  Of  the  Vocation  of  our  Age  for  Legislation  and  Jurisprudence," 
London,  1831,  p.  23. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE      22/ 

says,1  "It  feeds  him  with  the  hope  that  things  will 
take  care  of  themselves  and  that  the  best  he  can  do  is 
to  fold  his  arms  and  confidently  wait  for  what  may 
gradually  spring  to  light  from  that  primitive  source  of  all 
law  so-called,  —  the  natural  conviction  of  legal  right. 
Hence  his  aversion,  and  all  his  disciples,  for  the  inter- 
ference of  legislation." 

7.  Another  feature  of  the  social  philosophy  of 
Morelly  was  his  unbounded  optimism.  Pessimism  as 
to  conditions,  optimism  as  to  possibilities,  sums  up  in 
a  phrase  the  creed  of  early  socialism.  Of  this  period  of 
expectation  a  French  critic  says:  "It  has  inspired  the 
political  philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth 
centuries.  It  produced  after  the  Revolution  the 
theories  of  the  socialist  schools  while  it  has  done  much 
to  nourish  contemporaneous  socialism." 2  Nitti  de- 
scribes it  as  follows,  "Toward  the  close  of  the  last 
century  there  spread  over  the  whole  of  Europe  from 
France,  not  only  the  theories  that  proclaimed  the  new 
social  faith,  but  also,  and  not  less  extensively,  the  most 
absolute  trust  in  the  goodness  of  natural  laws  and  in 
human  perfection  and  perfectibility."  3 

Here,  then,  is  the  basis  of  that  optimism  which  marks 
the  eighteenth-century  thought:  unbounded  faith  in 

1  "The  Struggle  for  Law,"  translated  from  German,  Chicago,  1879, 
p.  14. 

*  Renouvier,  "Schopenhauer  et  le  Pessimisme,"  p.  5. 
3  Nitti,  op.  cit.,  p.  10. 


228      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

the  beneficent  control  of  the  natural  laws ;  in  the  doc- 
trine of  human  goodness;  in  the  idea  of  progress  and 
the  possibility  of  a  social  solidarity  —  all  these  factors 
figure  in  that  sentiment  of  hopefulness  which  character- 
ized the  decades  preceding  the  French  Revolution. 

All  types  of  writing  are  colored  by  it;  works  on 
commerce  and  economics,  on  law  and  politics,  on 
psychology  and  metaphysics.  Psychology,  dealing  with 
man's  inherent  qualities,  reached  the  conclusion  that  he 
was  not  bad,  but  innately  good.  The  economic  writers 
saw  the  disappearance  of  the  Age  of  Mercantilism,  with 
its  wars  and  strife,  and  prophesied  the  new  era  of 
peace,  when  trade  should  be  untrammelled  and  industry 
go  on  unhindered  to  better  days.  The  great  philoso- 
pher, Kant,  expressed  his  faith  in  new-born  democracy 
in  his  happy  dream,  "  Zum  ewigen  Frieden,"  l  telling 
how  the  new  system  would  banish  war.  Until  the 
Revolution  these  hopes  kept  bright.  Hopes  in  political 
reform  and  social  regeneration;  hopes  in  economic 
prosperity,  when  there  should  be  universal  freedom 
in  commercial  relations ;  hopes  in  the  liberation  of  the 
human  mind  from  thraldom,  and  in  a  higher  morality 
based  on  reason  as  the  highest  expression  of  nature's 
laws  —  some  such  hopes  mark  the  closing  decades  of 
the  eighteenth  century. 

This  optimism  of  which  Morelly  and  his  associates 

1  Kant,  "Zum  ewigen  Frieden,"  1804. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM   IN   FRANCE      229 

partake  rests  rather  upon  metaphysical  reasoning  than 
upon  theological  dogmatizing.  During  the  eighteenth 
century,  owing  largely  to  the  attacks  made  upon  theology 
by  Meslier  and  Voltaire,  and  to  the  rise  of  the  school  of 
mathematics  under  Leibnitz,  and  the  school  of  psy- 
chology under  Condorcet,  the  theological  type  of  opti- 
mism gives  way  to  the  metaphysical,  and  the  schools 
of  socialism,  politics,  and  economics  accept,  in  a  little 
different  form,  the  belief  in  the  final  good  issue  of  all 
things.1  It  may  be  said  that  the  idea  of  the  benevolent 
will  of  a  Supreme  Being  has  been  replaced  by  the  con- 
cept of  the  laws  of  nature,  which  were  also  thought  of  as 
benevolent.  This  is  true  for  illustration  of  the  physio- 
crats of  whom  Ritchie  says,  "The  theory  of  the  physio- 
crats, that  man  ought  to  study  natural  law  and  not 
disturb  its  actions,  assumes  that  nature  is  operating  in 
a  way  that  is  beneficial  to  man."  2  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  teachings  of  Adam  Smith.  "The  law  of 
nature  becomes  with  him  an  article  of  religious  faith; 
the  principles  of  human  nature,  in  accordance  with  the 
nature  of  their  Divine  Author,  necessarily  tend  to  the 
most  beneficial  employments  of  man's  faculties  and 
resources."  8 

1  Renouvier,  op.  tit.,  p.  45 ;  Bonar,  "  Philosophy  and  Political 
Economy,"  pp.  99  et  seq. 

1  Ritchie,  "  Natural  Rights,"  a  criticism  of  some  political  and  eth- 
ical conceptions,  London,  1895,  p.  45. 

*  Cliffe  Leslie,  op.  cit.,  p.  153. 


230     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

Naturally  connected  with  this  was  the  additional  idea 
that,  under  this  general  law,  the  public  and  individual 
interests  could  be  reconciled.  The  theory  that  the 
social  and  individual  ends  and  purposes  may,  if  properly 
adjusted,  be  made  to  coincide,  is  a  necessary  postulate 
of  all  socialist  doctrine ;  else  it  must  mean  the  destruc- 
tion of  individual  liberty  or  a  lessening  of  social  welfare. 
The  age  here  under  discussion  saw  the  rise  of  this 
happy  sentiment.  It  became  an  axiom  of  the  science 
with  many  economists  and  with  English  statesmen,  that, 
by  a  natural  law,  the  private  interests  harmonize  with 
the  interests  of  the  public.  This  proposition  under- 
lies the  social  and  economic  theories  of  the  classical 
economists;  it  is  the  hope  of  the  radical  social  re- 
formers in  France,  and  a  main  tenet  of  the  physio- 
crats. Of  the  attitude  of  Adam  Smith  on  this 
question  Professor  Veblen  says,  "Both  in  the  'The- 
ory of  Moral  Sentiments'  and  in  his  'Wealth  of 
Nations'  there  are  many  passages  that  testify  to  his 
abiding  conviction  that  there  is  a  wholesome  trend  in 
the  natural  course  of  things,  and  the  characteristically 
optimistic  tone  in  which  he  speaks  for  natural  liberty 
is  but  an  expression  of  this  conviction."  * 

Ample  illustrations  of  this  attitude  may  be  found  in  all 
the  literature  of  the  time.  Hume  says,  "The  interests 

'"Journal  of  Political  Economy,"  Vol.  XIII,  p.  396. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE     231 

of  others  are,  on  the  whole,  in  the  case  of  nearly  every 
man,  stronger  than  even  his  own  self-interest. ' ' l  Hutch- 
eson,  in  his  "System  of  Moral  Philosophy,"  discusses 
at  length  the  innate  principles  of  benevolence.2  Burke, 
in  his  "Sublime  and  Beautiful,"  distinguishes  two 
fundamental  lines  of  action,  those  of  self-preservation 
and  social  interest.3  Adam  Ferguson  sees  the  natural 
condition  of  social  union  coming  from  a  very  high  and 
altruistic  origin.4 

Volney,  in  his  too  little  read  classic,  "Les  Ruines," 
sets  forth  the  same  happy  theory  of  the  possible  har- 
mony between  the  general  and  particular  interests. 
He  teaches  that  these  interests  are  not  naturally  in 
conflict.  If  society  were  properly  organized,  harmony 
and  not  discord  would  result.  Not  only  this,  he  taught 
the  notion  of  a  larger  possible  union  of  interests  that 
underlay  the  cosmopolitan  economics  of  the  classical 
school.  Society  at  large,  having  passed  through  the 
same  stages  that  particular  societies  have  done,  promises 
the  same  close  union  on  a  larger  scale.  "At  first 
separated  in  its  parts  each  individual  stood  alone,  and 
this  intellectual  solitude  constituted  its  childhood."  5 
In  this  more  perfect  society  "individuals  will  feel  that 
private  happiness  is  allied  to  the  happiness  of  society."  6 

1  "Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  54.         *  Published  in  1748.  3 1756. 

4  "Essay  on  the  History  of  Civil  Society,"  Boston,  1809,  pp.  1-3. 
'Volney,  "Les  Ruines,"  p.  48.         *  Ibid.,  p.  47. 


232      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

In  this  theory  the  social  and  individual  welfare  were  not 
incompatible.1 

8.  It  has  always  been  argued  that  the  possibilities  of 
socialism  and  its  practical  success  are  conditioned  on 
the  nature  of  man  himself.  The  phrase  has  grown  old 
in  service  that  water  can  rise  no  higher  than  its  source 
and  that  society,  regardless  of  its  structure,  can  be  no 
better  than  the  units  which  compose  it.  Like  all 
epigrams  this  one  is  dangerous  and  may  easily  be 
untrue.  However,  the  faith  in  schemes  of  social  reform 
will  be  determined  largely  by  the  theories  held  con- 
cerning man's  nature  and  possibilities.  In  this  regard 
a  study  of  the  beliefs  of  this  period  is  enlightening. 

One  of  the  underlying  ideas  in  the  schemes  of  reform 
of  the  last  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  the  theory 
of  the  native  goodness  of  man.  The  schemes  of 
ideal  societies  and  model  commonwealths  and  Utopian 
states  were  justified  by  the  dogma  of  primitive  good- 
ness. Man,  taken  as  the  unit  of  society,  must  be  per- 
fect, or  at  least  perfectible.  In  that  state  of  nature 
where  men  were  happy  there  must  be  lacking  those 
evils  which  curse  conventional  society.  The  propo- 

1  Cf.  Roscher,  "Principles  of  Political  Economy,"  English  trans- 
lation, p.  79;  Boisguilbert,  "Factum  de  la  France,"  Daire  edition, 
Ch.  10 ;  J.  B.  Say,  "Traite"  d'Economie,"  p.  15;  Bentham,  "Trea- 
tise," Vol.  I,  p.  229. 

In  poetry,  cf.  Werner,  "Passing  Century";  cf.  Coar,  "Studies  in 
German  Literature,"  p.  9. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE      233 

sitions  accepted  by  the  radical  thinkers  were,  that  man 
in  a  state  of  nature  was  benevolent  and  with  proper 
social  environment  might  be  kept  so.  The  discussion 
took  shape  in  the  denial  of  the  theory  of  innate 
ideas,  the  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  primitive  good- 
ness, and  the  environment  theory  of  evil. 

One  of  the  clearest  features  in  the  works  of  this  kind 
was  the  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  innate  ideas.  These 
writers  deny  that  man  comes  into  society  with  any  other 
mental  furnishings  than  the  tendency  to  be  and  to  do. 
This  doctrine  was  a  favorite  one  with  Morelly  and  on  it 
he  parted  company  with  Locke.  It  is  this  fact  that 
formed  the  basis  of  the  environment  theory,  made  so 
much  of  by  these  early  writers  and  which  was  the 
corner-stone  of  the  social  theory  of  Robert  Owen. 

Of  these  philosophers  the  teachings  of  Helve*tius  are 
perhaps  clearest  and  most  positive  and  may  be  cited  as 
typical  of  the  school  on  this  point.  He  denied  the 
existence  of  innate  ideas.  Man's  actions  are  neither 
to  be  explained  nor  controlled  by  appeal  to  internal 
forces.  Knowledge  is  a  result  of  sensation.  The 
environment,  therefore,  with  which  man  comes  in 
contact  makes  him  what  he  is.1  Education,  a  fit  social 
environment,  the  proper  training  of  the  young  —  these 
things  make  for  a  perfect  social  state.  "The  ideas 

1  Peabody,  "  Jesus  Christ  and  Christian  Character, "  etc.,  N.  Y. 
1905,  pp.  9-10. 


234      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

supposed  to  be  innate  are  those  that  are  familiar  to  and 
as  it  were  incorporated  with  us;  they  are  the  effect  of 
education,  example,  and  habit."  1  In  this  theory  man 
is  entirely  without  inherent  moral  qualities.  "Moral 
ideas  are  a  result  of  experience  alone.  Judgment 
presupposes  sensibility  and  judgment  itself  is  the  fruit 
of  comparison."  2  Happiness  is  the  uniform  object  of 
all  the  passions.  These  are  legitimate  and  natural  and 
can  be  called  neither  good  nor  bad,  only  in  so  far  as 
they  are  a  social  cause  or  force.  To  direct  the  passions 
toward  virtue  it  is  necessary  to  convince  mankind  of 
its  advantages.  Such  were  the  general  teachings  of 
Helve'tius. 

Of  the  same  nature  is  the  teaching  of  D'Holbach. 
"Every  sensation,  then,  is  nothing  more  than  a  shock 
given  to  the  organs;  every  perception  is  this  shock 
propagated  to  the  brain;  every  idea  is  the  image  of 
the  object  to  which  the  sensation  and  perception  are 
ascribed."  3  "Such  are  the  only  means  by  which  man 
receives  sensations,  perceptions,  and  his  ideas."  4  The 
same  general  theory  may  be  found  in  Volney.  Morelly 
in  like  manner  denies  the  whole  theory  of  innate  ideas 
and  of  inherent  evil.  He  denies  that  man  has  any 
natural  tendency  toward  evil  or  any  spirit  of  jealousy 
or  disorder. 

1  "System  of  Nature,"  p.  15.  *  Ibid. 

8  "Nature  and  her  Laws,"  Vol.  I,  p.  189.          *  Ibid.,  p.  192. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE      235 

Thus  was  the  theory  of  innate  ideas  denied,  and  the 
doctrine  of  primitive  goodness  took  shape  in  the  minds 
of  the  French  philosophers.  This  doctrine,  however, 
was  not  original  with  these  writers  though  accepted  by 
them  and  employed  in  their  radical  social  teachings  and 
actions.  From  a  historical  standpoint  this  period  of 
native  goodness  had  been  reckoned  in  terms  of  the 
chronology  of  ethical  development.  To  primitive 
peoples,  anterior  to  the  period  of  culture,  this  good- 
ness is  attributed.  Thus,  in  theological  teachings,  the 
period  of  perfection  is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  things 
and  the  world  moves  away  from  it. 

In  early  profane  writings  the  same  idea  of  perfection 
obtains.  For  instance,  Cicero  says:  "The  earliest 
races  of  mankind,  as  yet  free  from  evil  passions,  lived 
without  reproach,  without  sin,  and  without  the  necessity 
of  either  punishment  or  coercion.  But  after  a  time  this 
original  state  of  equality  disappeared  and  ambition  and 
force  took  the  place  of  modesty  and  simplicity."  1  This 
is  not  the  theory,  however,  as  held  by  the  philosophers. 
To  them  the  time  element  is  not  of  importance.  It 
was  to  them  a  logical  and  not  a  chronological  considera- 
tion. It  is  true  they  taught  that  the  golden  age  was  in 
the  past  and  that  civilization,  as  they  saw  it,  was  a 
departure  from  it.  But,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  they 
thought  in  terms  of  metaphysics  and  not  of  history. 
'"Republic,"  Bk.  V,  Ch.  3. 


236      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

Their  idea  was  to  clear  away  the  product  of  develop- 
ment and  you  would  find  the  inherent  goodness  of  man 
still  existent.  The  writings  of  the  time  constantly 
speak  of  reversion  to  the  native  or  primitive  condition 
of  man.  This  was  the  idea  of  Rousseau,  Condillac, 
Morelly,  and  their  associates.  As  has  been  pointed  out, 
this  type  of  socialism  is  reactionary.  It  finds  a  repre- 
sentative in  England  in  recent  time  where  William 
Morris  advises  a  return  to  the  early  feudal  type  of 
social  structure. 

This  eighteenth- century  idea  of  goodness  finds  its 
source  partly  in  the  romance  of  travel  which  dealt  in 
most  instances  sympathetically  with  the  primitive  life  of 
savage  peoples.  The  writings  of  the  Jesuits,  of  Rous- 
seau, and  Mrs.  Aphra  Behn  are  largely  responsible  for 
this  interest  in  folk-culture.  To  Mrs.  Behn,  Rousseau 
owed  the  concept  and  the  expression,  "Le  Bon  Sau- 
vage."  According  to  Lichtenberger  this  was  the  main 
contribution  of  this  rather  remarkable  woman  to  social 
science.1  She  expressed  the  doctrine  that  primitive 
man  was  happy  because  he  conformed  to  nature's 
laws  and  lived  in  a  state  of  simplicity.2  She  stirred 
up  interest  in  the  study  of  this  man  of  nature  and  what 
he  might  enjoy  if  left  to  develop  naturally.  She  gave 
the  suggestion,  developed  by  later  writers,  that  man  is 
not  inherently  bad ;  that  he  is  by  nature  good  and  has 

'"Le  Socialisme  Utopique,"  pp.  21-23.         *  Ibid.,  p.  23. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN   FRANCE     237 

social  instincts;  that  he  is  not  the  fierce,  warlike 
creature  described  by  Hobbes;  not  the  uncomely 
being  satirized  by  Defoe;  but  rather  a  moral,  benevo- 
lent type,  following  nature  in  his  native  simplicity.1 

Thus  briefly  stated  are  some  of  the  features  of  that 
hopeful  philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  century  which  led 
the  reformers  to  believe  in  man  as  a  perfectible  being,  fit 
subject  for  a  more  perfect  social  and  political  condition. 
Such  was  a  most  useful  concept  to  any  scheme  of  social 
perfection;  as  a  logical  conclusion  to  the  "state  of 
nature"  philosophy,  it  encouraged  the  destruction  of 
existing  forms.  When  the  test  of  the  validity  of  exist- 
ing social  institutions  was  their  conformity  to  natural 
law,  and  when  it  seemed  apparent  that  society  had  not 
evolved  according  to  this  law,  a  long  step  was  taken 
toward  revolution.  When  along  with  the  theory  of 
goodness  was  placed  the  idea  that  evil  arose  from 
environment,  and  this  in  the  sense  of  social  environ- 
ment, then  the  field  was  cleared  for  a  very  radical 
change  in  this  environment.  With  such  hopeful  theo- 
ries entertained,  it  was  not  unusual  that  dreams  of  ideal 
states  came  to  those  philosophic  minds.  "  It  is  a  logical 
necessity  of  the  human  mind  to  model  a  thing  perfectly 
which  will  and  must  show  its  imperfections  in  the 

1  On  Mrs.  Behn,  see  Gildon,  "History  of  Life  and  Memoirs 
of  Mrs.  Behn,"  1863;  "Plays,  Histories,  and  Novels,"  etc.,  6  vols., 
London,  1871.  Julia  Kavanah,  "English  Women  of  Letters,"  Vol.  I. 


238      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

execution.  Hence  it  has  been  that  before  there  have 
been  practical  schemes  and  workable  plans  there  have 
been  totally  impractical  dreams  and  Utopian  societies."  * 

9.  Of  the  utmost  interest  and  importance  in  the 
history  of  this  radical  thought  are  those  theories  dealing 
with  the  property  right.  Before  the  Revolution  the 
discussion  took  a  legal,  juristic  direction,  treating  of  the 
most  general  ideas  of  property.  Later  study  was 
applied  more  minutely  to  value  and  value-production 
and  the  equities  arising  from  the  economic  process. 
The  earlier  views  are  found  discussed  in  Locke,  while 
Ricardo  is  credited  with  originating  the  surplus-value 
theory  of  Karl  Marx,  whose  property-theory  rests  upon 
the  concept  of  value-production. 

John  Locke  stated  the  labor-theory  of  property  in 
his  famous  work,  "Two  Treatises  of  Government." 
According  to  Locke  property  emerges  and  property- 
rights  find  their  justification  when  labor  has  been 
expended  on  useless  material  things.2  Students  of 

1  Emerson,  "Representative  Men,"  London,  1850,  p.  135. 

2  "Though  the  earth  and  all  inferior  creatures  be  common  to  all 
men,  yet  every  man  has  a  property  in  his  own  person.     This  nobody 
has  any  right  to  but  himself.     The  labor  of  his  body  and  the  work  of 
his  hands  we  may  say  are  properly  his.     Whatsoever  he  redeems  out 
of  the  state  nature  hath  provided,  and  left  it  in,  he  hath  mixed  his 
labor  with  it,  and  joined  to  it  something  that  is  his  own  and  thereby 
makes  it  his  property.     It  being  by  him  removed  from  the  common 
state  nature  placed  it  in  it  hath  by  this  labor  something  annexed  to 
it  that  excludes  the  common  right  of  other  men.     For  this  labor  being 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY   RADICALISM  IN   FRANCE      239 

Marx  will  find  this  not  far  from  true  Marxian  doctrine. 
Locke  does  not  call  value  "congealed  labor,"  but  this 
phrase  practically  sums  up  his  theory.  Locke's  property 
theory  is  entirely  in  accord  with  the  "natural  rights" 
doctrine  as  later  elaborated.1  Natural  law  limits  the 
extent  to  which  the  rights  of  property  may  go ; 2  the 
degrees  of  usefulness  being  the  standard  by  which  to 
judge.3 

Grotius  differed  fundamentally  with  Locke  as  to  the 
origin  of  property  rights.  He  saw  no  virtue  in  labor  as 
the  origin  of  property-right.  Neither  the  expenditure 
of  labor  nor  the  sacrifice  involved  in  labor  had  any 
connection  with  either  the  right  of  property  or  with  the 
addition  of  values.  He  did  not  recognize  the  creation 
of  form- values ;  nor  could  labor,  added  to  raw  material, 
change  its  status.  Being  of  a  legal  turn  of  mind  his 
inquiry  did  not  extend  further  than  the  fact  of  present 

the  unquestionable  property  of  the  laborer,  no  man  but  he  can  have 
a  right  to  what  that  is  once  joined  to ;  at  least  there  is  enough  and  as 
good  left  in  common  for  others.  The  labor  that  was  mine  removing 
them  out  of  that  common  state  hath  fixed  my  property  in  them."  — 
"Two  Treatises  of  Government,"  Vol.  II,  Ch.  V. 

1  "  The  original  law  of  nature  for  the  beginning  of  property  in 
what  was  before  common  still  takes  place."  —  "Two  Treatises  of 
Government,"  Vol.  II,  Ch.  V. 

*  "The  same  law  of  nature  which  by  this  means  gives  us  property 
does  also  bound  that  property." 

.  8." As  much  as  any  one  can  make  use  of  before  it  spoils,  so  much 
he  may  by  his  labor  fix  a  property  in." 


240      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

possession  which  he  claimed  could  originally  be  gained 
chiefly  by  first  occupancy.1 

As  Locke  had  discussed  property  from  the  side  of 
labor  or  from  the  standpoint  of  production,  Pufendorf 
considered  it  from  the  utility  or  consumption  view  point. 
His  point  of  departure  was  the  existence  of  the  needs  of 
man.  He  adhered  to  the  "right  of  subsistence"  theory 
discussed  above.  The  fact  of  human  wants  presumes 
man's  right  to  control  the  necessary  things  for  their 
satisfaction.  Pufendorf  denied  that  there  were  in- 
herent rights  to  property.  Property  does  not  exist  in  a 
state  of  nature ;  it  is  therefore  a  result  of  the  develop- 
ment of  institutions.2  Property  arises  merely  as  a 
result  of  convention,  agreement,  law,  whereby  dominion 
over  certain  things  is  fixed  in  one  person.  Accord- 
ing to  Pufendorf  when  man  left  the  state  of  nature,  he  did 
not  take  the  institution  of  property  nor  even  the  instinct 
of  property  with  him  into  society.3  Property  was  the 

1  "  Our  business  here  then  is  to  treat  of  taking  possession  by 
right  of  prior  occupancy;  which  since  those  times  just  mentioned  is 
the  only  natural  and  primitive  manner  of  acquisition."  — "  Rights 
of  War  and  Peace,"  Bk.  II,  Ch.  3. 

2 "  And  therefore  'tis  an  idle  question,  whether  the  property  of 
things  arise  from  nature  or  from  institution;  since  we  have  plain 
evidence  that  it  proceeds  from  the  imposition  of  men."  —  "Law 
of  Nature  and  of  Nations,"  Bk.  IV,  Ch.  4. 

*  "  Property  is  the  result  of  an  agreement.  Therefore  the  prop- 
erty of  things  flowed  immediately  from  the  compact  of  men  either 
tacit  or  expressed."  —  Op.  cit. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE      241 

result  of  social  evolution  and  did  not  exist  in  primitive 
conditions. 1 

According  to  Hobbes  there  was  no  idea  of  property 
before  institutions  arose.  Man  in  his  primitive  state 
had  no  property.  In  speaking  of  the  relation  of  justice 
to  injustice  he  says  these  things  arise  out  of  social 
organization.  Property  he  treats  in  the  same  way. 
"It  is  consequent  therefore  to  the  same  conditions  that 
there  be  no  propriety,  no  dominion,  no  mine  and  thine 
distinct ;  but  only  that  to  be  every  man's  that  he  can  get 
and  so  long  as  he  can  keep  it." 2  In  a  state  of  nature, 
every  man  has  a  right  to  everything.  Property  depends 
upon  the  institution  of  the  coercive  powers  of  the  state. 
Property  is  a  creation  of  society  and  is  a  legal  and  social 
rather  than  an  individual  or  natural  thing.  As  to  the 
origin  of  the  property  right  Hobbes  follows  Pufendorf. 
In  general  the  first  possessor  has  valid  claim  to  property. 
"And  therefore  those  things  that  cannot  be  enjoyed  in 
common  nor  divided  ought  to  be  adjudged  to  the  first 
possessor;  and  in  some  cases  to  the  first-born  as  ac- 
quired by  lot." ' 

Hobbes  did  not  make  society  rest  upon  property  as 
did  Rousseau,  Mably,  Thiers,  and  others.  He  saw 
property  grow  out  of  social  organization  and  order,  as 

lCt.  Kautsky,  "Vorlaufer  des  neueren  Socialismus,"  Stuttgart, 
1895.  P-  3- 

a  "Leviathan,"  Pt.  I,  Ch.  13.  !  Op.  cU.t  Pt.  I,  Ch.  15. 

R 


242      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

one  of  their  results.  Property  is  not,  then,  a  natural 
right,  and  would  not  be  found  in  a  state  of  nature.  To 
return  to  this  state  would  rid  man  of  the  evils  of  property. 
Alike  in  the  happy  state  of  the  hopeful  socialist  and  the 
gloomy  realm  of  the  cynical  Hobbes  would  be  lacking 
the  problem  of  civilization  —  private  property. 

These  writers  may  be  said  to  represent  a  class  who 
were  seriously  attempting  to  explain  and  justify  the 
right  of  property  at  a  time  when,  with  the  break- 
ing up  of  feudalism,  the  system  was  being  shaken, 
just  as  others  arose  to  defend  monarchy  when,  with 
the  rise  of  democracy,  its  foundations  were  made  inse- 
cure. It  has  been  seen  that  the  right  of  private 
property  had  been  defended  on  three  grounds:  the 
labor  theory,  the  right  of  the  first  occupant,  and  the 
social  utility  theory. 

Somewhat  later  there  appeared  in  France  a  group  of 
writers  who  equally  as  seriously  questioned  the  right 
of  private  property.  Of  these  there  were  two  classes : 
those  who  saw  in  it  evil  and  only  evil  and  called  for  its 
abandonment,  and  those  who  condemned  it,  but  who 
looked  upon  it  as  a  social  necessity,  a  necessary  evil ; 
just  as  they  viewed  government  or  conventional  society 
at  large. 

10.  Among  the  early  writers  who  contemplated 
a  social  upheaval  and  opened  a  direct  attack  upon 
property  perhaps  the  one  of  most  interest  was  the 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM   IN  FRANCE     243 

curate,  Jean  Meslier.1  Meslier  was  an  uncompromising 
foe  of  property  and  set  forth  in  the  clearest  manner  his 
belief  in  the  common  control  of  the  wealth  of  society. 
Among  the  evils  which  oppressed  mankind  and  called 
for  reform  the  worst  is  private  property.2  Meslier 
attacked  property  chiefly  on  sentimental  grounds. 
Property  means,  he  says,  inequality ;  inequality  leads  to 
injustice  and  oppression.3  The  rich  are  respected  and 
honored,  while  the  poor  must  toil  in  neglect.  Property 
he  condemns  as  a  cause  of  idleness ;  the  idle  rich  class 
finds  its  complement  in  an  idle  poor  class.  This  latter 
class  is  made  up  of  the  unemployed  who,  because  of  the 
present  system,  have  nothing  to  do  and  are  hence  in 

1  Jean  Meslier,  or  Mellier,  was  born  in  1664.  He  was  educated 
for  orders,  but  gradually  drifted  into  scepticism,  and  was  the  intel- 
lectual father  and  guide  of  Voltaire.  From  being  sceptical  as  to 
certain  tenets  of  the  church  he  came  to  be  a  radical  and  aggressive 
materialist.  From  a  religious  critic  he  developed  into  a  social  icono- 
clast, and  was  as  bitter  against  the  existing  social  order  as  he  was 
against  the  religious  system.  The  chief  source  of  his  thought  in  this 
line  was  "Le  Testament  de  Jean  Meslier,"  a  very  rare  book.  There 
is  an  original  copy  in  the  National  Library  in  Paris,  from  which  these 
excerpts  are  made. 

1  "  Un  autre  abus  encore  et  qui  est  presque  universellement  re?u  et 
autorise  dans  le  monde  est  1'appropriation  particuliere  que  les  hommes 
se  font  des  biens  et  des  richesses  de  la  terre  au  lieu  qu'ils  devraient 
tous  e*galement  les  posseder  en  commun  et  en  jouir  aussi  egalement 
en  commun."  —  "Le  Testament,"  Ch.  49. 

8  The  close  relationship  of  property  rights  to  inequality  he  expresses, 
"  1'appropriation  particuliere  que  les  hommes  se  font  des  biens  et  des 
richesses  de  la  terre,"  is  the  cause  of  all  oppression.  Quoted  by 
Griinberg,  "Revue  d'Economie  Politique,"  1888,  p.  291. 


244      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

poverty.  Cupidity  and  its  attendants,  ambition  and 
greed,  he  points  out  as  the  evils  in  a  society  based  upon 
property.  Property  does  unite  people;  but  through 
jealousy  tends  to  break  up  social  harmony,  and  hence 
destroys  social  unity. 

Like  later  socialists  Meslier  traces  crime  back  to 
the  institution  of  private  property.  Fraud,  deception, 
theft,  and  murder,  he  affirms,  find  their  cause  in 
property.  Society  might  be  happy  were  goods  made 
common  and  equality  secured.  Meslier  saw  what  so 
many  overlooked,  that  the  basis  of  equality  is  equality 
of  economic  condition.  Other  writers  before  and  after 
the  Revolution  saw  and  affirmed  that  political  equality 
was  an  empty  phrase  so  long  as  such  a  chasm  sepa- 
rates those  who  have  from  those  who  have  not.  On 
this  point  these  earlier  writers  agree. 

Drawing  closer  to  the  Revolution  some  attention  is 
due  the  writer  whose  ideas  had  such  an  influence  on  all 
types  of  thought,  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau.  There  has 
been  much  discussion  recently  concerning  Rousseau's 
real  teachings  on  questions  of  social  organization.  He 
has,  on  one  hand,  been  called  a  communist,  and  an  enemy 
of  the  then  existing  social  order,  and,  on  the  other,  a 
defender  of  private  property  and  of  social  order.  It 
seems  safe  to  say  that  he  was  not  a  communist ;  neither 
was  he  a  social  iconoclast.  Indeed,  he  advises  few 
radical  measures  of  any  kind.  In  a  very  general  man- 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM   IN  FRANCE      245 

ner  he  condemned  civilization  and  society  at  large,  and 
thus  it  may  be  said  he  attacked  the  particular  institution. 
In  both  his  works,  "Discours  sur  ITnegalite  "  and  his 
"  Contrat  Social,"  he  recognizes  the  necessary  connection 
between  property  and  a  stable  condition  of  society,  and 
that  modern  civilization  rests  largely  upon  the  institu- 
tion of  private  property.1  If  society  must  exist,  then 
property  must  be  tolerated  as  its  basis  and  security.  In 
a  state  of  nature,  according  to  Rousseau,  there  was 
no  private  property.  Society  and  property  came  into 
existence  together,  and  the  two  are  complementary. 
This  part  of  his  theory  appears  in  his  oft-quoted  phrase : 
"The  first  man  who,  having  enclosed  a  piece  of  land, 
thought  of  saying  'This  is  mine,'  and  found  a  people 
simple  enough  to  believe  him,  was  the  true  founder  of 
civil  society." 

There  are  some  interesting  points  of  contact  between 
the  ideas  of  Rousseau  and  the  earlier  theories.  With 
Locke  he  taught  that  above  the  needs  of  the  individual 
no  further  right  could  exist.  The  natural  and  legitimate 
limits  are  the  needs  of  the  possessor.  "Every  man  has 
by  nature  a  right  to  all  that  is  necessary  to  him ;  ...  his 
position  allotted,  he  ought  to  confine  himself  to  it,  and 
he  has  no  further  right  to  the  undivided  property."  2 
The  right  of  prior  occupancy  as  either  justification  or 
explanation  of  the  origin  of  property  Rousseau  held 

1  Baudrillart,  op.  cit.,  p.  283.       2  "Du  Contrat  Social,"  Book  I,  Ch.  9. 


246     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

was  void;  as  the  right  must  be  established  before  there 
could  be  property.  The  property  right  rests  upon  law, 
and  is  a  contractual  and  not  a  natural  right.  Though 
merely  a  convention,  it  is  of  such  importance  that 
society  cannot  dispense  with  it.  Property  is  the  true 
foundation  of  civil  society,  and  the  true  guarantee  of  the 
order  of  the  citizen  (engagement) ;  for  if  the  laws  had  no 
such  sanction  nothing  would  be  easier  than  to  evade  duty 
and  laugh  at  the  laws. 1 

Rousseau  does,  however,  see  evils  in  society  and  in 
the  institution  of  private  property  in  particular.  These 
he  attacks  in  no  mild  terms.  "How  many  crimes,  how 
many  murders,  how  many  wars,  how  many  misfortunes 
and  horrors  would  that  man  have  saved  the  human 
race,  who,  pulling  up  the  stakes  and  filling  up  the 
ditches,  should  have  cried  to  his  fellows :  '  Be  sure  not 
to  listen  to  this  impostor;  you  are  lost  if  you  forget 
that  the  fruits  of  the  earth  belong  equally  to  all,  and  the 
earth  to  nobody.' "  2  Rousseau  admitted  communism 
in  theory,  but  he  did  not  propose  its  application;  he 
saw  evils  in  the  right  of  inheritance,  but  in  view  of 
the  greater  evil  of  very  rapidly  shifting  fortunes  he 
upheld  the  right  of  transmission.  Rousseau  was  not  a 
forerunner  of  the  radical  French  school  that  produced 
the  social  side  of  the  Revolution.  His  relations  to  the 

1  "  A  Discourse  upon  the  Origin  and  Foundation  of  the  Inequality 
among  Mankind,"  p.  154.  J  Ibid.,  p.  97. 


EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RADICALISM  IN  FRANCE      247 

political  aspects  of  the  Revolution  were  no  doubt  more 
important,  while  in  regard  to  the  social  side  he  was 
conservative,  believing  the  existing  institutions  necessary 
to  orderly  society.  He  looked  on  property  as  one  of  the 
steps  in  the  transition  of  man  from  the  lower  to  a  higher 
state.  The  abandonment  of  property  would  mean  a 
reversion  to  barbarism.1  He  commends  a  return  to  a 
happy  state  of  nature,  but  offers  no  definite  substitute 
for  the  existing  conditions. 

1  Sudre,  "  Histoire  du  Communisme,  ou  Refutation  historique  des 
Utopias  socialistes,"  Paris,  1850,  p.  169. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY 

i.  As  has  been  stated  there  is  a  noticeable  advance 
in  method  from  the  time  of  Thomas  More  to  that  of 
Morelly.  Work  in  the  social  field  was  affected  by  this 
change.  Gradually  the  spirit  of  inductive  study  and 
the  habit  of  more  scientific  investigation  had  worked 
its  way  into  the  mental  processes  of  the  thinkers  and 
writers  on  these  lines.  By  the  time  of  Morelly  and 
Montesquieu  a  large  element  of  accuracy  and  detail 
appears  in  the  social  treatises.  Especially  was  this 
true  of  Montesquieu  and  Condorcet.  In  "Spirit  of 
Laws  "  the  historical,  inductive  process  is  most  evident, 
and  the  conclusions  rest  upon  a  large  amount  of  scien- 
tific reasoning.  This  feature  is  less  marked  in  Morelly 
and  still  less  in  Rousseau.  The  writings  of  Morelly, 
however,  show  a  marked  historical  tendency  and  a 
clearer,  more  analytic  method.  He  deals  in  historical 
evidence  and  enters  into  detail  in  both  his  destructive 
and  constructive  work.  "Conjectural"  this  history 
may  be;  imperfect  the  analysis  may  appear;  meagre 
though  the  scheme  for  a  new  social  structure  certainly 
seems,  —  yet  in  the  writings  of  Morelly  is  shown  a 

248 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          249 

clearer  appreciation  of  what  the  social  problems  are 
and  more  matured  plans  for  their  solution. 

In  the  first  place  Morelly  so  attempts  to  analyze 
society  as  to  locate  the  causes  of  evil  in  the  social  en- 
vironment and  not  in  the  nature  of  the  individual  — 
a  very  fundamental  proposition.  He  considers  society 
in  its  two  aspects,  —  the  collective  whole  and  its  indi- 
vidual members,  its  constituent  elements.  The  philoso- 
phers had  also  done  this.  The  nature  of  the  individ- 
ualistic teaching  led  to  this  view.  The  recognition  of 
the  individual  as  the  "Unit  of  Empire"  was  one  of  the 
primary  facts  of  the  revolutionary  thinking.1  The 
marked  advance  in  the  method  of  Morelly  lies  in  this : 
most  writers  of  this  time  assumed  a  "man  of  nature," 
endowed  with  certain  innate  powers,  qualities,  and 
ideas;2  and  while  he  was  supposed  to  possess  certain 
inalienable  rights  which  existed  before  government 
and  persisted  in  spite  of  such  government,  few  had 
seriously  considered  the  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the 
qualities  and  place  of  this  assumed  natural  man.8 
No  serious  attempt  had  been  made  outside  of  the  con- 
jectures of  romancists  to  trace  this  man  of  nature  and 
this  society  based  upon  contract  to  see  whether  any  such 
thing  had  existed  or  could  in  the  nature  of  things  exist. 

1  Kuno  Francke,  A  History  of  German  Literature  as  determined 
by  Social  Forces,  1903,  p.  493. 

2  Instance  Locke,  "  Human  Understanding." 
1  Rousseau,  "Central  Social,"  Part  I,  p.  i. 


2$0      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

Satisfied  with  "glittering  generalities,"  most  writers 
paid  little  or  no  attention  to  the  actual  details  of  primi- 
tive society  nor  inquired  how  things  had  actually  tran- 
spired. 

To  certain  little  known  and  underestimated  writers 
much  credit  is  due  for  introducing  into  social  study  a 
more  analytic  method  and  the  tendency  to  more  thor- 
oughly investigate  social  origins.  Among  these  Morelly l 
and  Linguet2  are  the  most  conspicuous  examples. 
Their  method  was  more  inductive,  their  investigation 
less  telescopic.  Morelly  asked  the  critical  question 
whether,  if  a  new  type  of  society  were  to  replace  the 
old,  it  was  possible  with  this  kind  of  primitive  man 
to  maintain  a  better  condition  of  society.  This  ques- 
tion he  was  hopeful  enough  to  answer  in  the  affirmative. 
He  was  optimistic  enough  to  believe  the  experiment 
promised  success  and  the  chances  for  better  social 
conditions  justified  a  social  revolution.  He  thought 
it  possible  to  abandon  the  existing  system  and  so  to 
reorganize  society  as  to  give  the  nobler  elements  the 
supremacy  instead  of  the  selfish,  baser  passions  which 
ruled  under  present  conditions. 

Morelly,  using  the  form  of  fiction,  at  first  published  a 
covert  but  bitter  attack  on  existing  society,  and  suggested 
in  vague  form  a  new  social  state  free  from  the  evils 

1  "Code  de  la.  Nature,"  1755. 

*  "Theorie  des  Lois  Civiles,"  Paris,  1767,  a  vols. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          251 

which  marked  his  age.1  His  "Code  de  la  Nature" 
made  no  pretence,  however,  to  veil  its  true  meaning 
either  as  to  matter  or  purpose.  It  was  a  clear,  definite 
statement  of  revolutionary  doctrine  in  a  very  revolu- 
tionary age.  It  is  in  his  teachings  that  the  radical 
revolutionary  philosophy  in  France  took  a  definite 
meaning  and  added  importance  in  the  form  of  a  con- 
structive social  scheme,  much  as  the  New  Thought  was 
given  a  practical  revolutionary  direction  in  Italy  by 
the  Calabrian  monk.  The  "Code"  appeared  eight 
years  after  the  "Spirit  of  Laws,"  and  the  year  following 
the  "Contrat  Social."  The  first  part  is  occupied  with 
a  defence  of  the  main  contentions  of  the  "Basiliade"; 
the  second  and  third  books  deal  critically  with  the 
existing  social  state;  while  the  last  book  outlines  his 
constructive  plan  for  a  perfect  commonwealth.  It 
contains  a  set  of  definite  rules  whose  introduction  would 
so  transform  society  as  to  lead  to  a  happy  social  state. 

2.  In  the  preceding  chapter  the  general  drift  of 
thought  along  those  lines  which  touch  socialistic  theory 
has  been  briefly  outlined.  The  more  special  application 
of  these  theories  will  be  here  pointed  out  as  found  in 
the  works  of  Morelly. 

One  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  in  the  theory  of 
Morelly  was  his  denial  of  the  dogma  of  innate  ideas, 
fathered  by  John  Locke,  and  holding  sway  for  a  century 

1  "Basiliade,"  1751-1753. 


252      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

previous.  This  attitude  was  of  importance  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  possibility  of  a  radical  social  change,  while 
it  cleared  the  way  for  Morelly's  doctrine  of  human 
goodness  and  his  theory  of  environment.  It  is  quite 
obvious  that  the  attempt  to  defend  private  property  by 
basing  it  upon  an  innate  and  common  human  instinct 
fails  where  any  such  notion  is  denied. 

In  denying  the  existence  of  such  innate  ideas,  as  Morelly 
did,  he  destroyed  the  argument  that  private  property 
was  consistent  with  the  instincts  and  the  nature  of 
man;  or  that  it  had  social  utility  in  furnishing  the  so- 
called  original  and  hence  indestructible  source  of  eco- 
nomic stimulus  and  motive.1  If  there  be  no  innate  sense 
or  idea  of  property,  then,  when  man  has  been  reduced 
to  his  native  simplicity  and  stripped  of  his  social  herit- 
age, there  is  no  ambition  nor  desire  for  property  to 
perplex.  If  property  is  no  more  than  an  historical  cate- 
gory, then  it  is  merely  an  artificial  institution,  not  origi- 
nal, not  natural  nor  necessary,  not  eternal,  and  may  well 
pass  away  in  the  process  of  historical  development. 

3.  As  has  been  said,  the  theory  of  a  condition  of 
primitive  goodness  and  happiness  is  an  old  and  popular 
one.  It  has  long  been  set  forth  by  writers,  sacred  and 
profane.  Goodness  and  happiness  have  generally  been 

1  "  L'homme  n'a  ni  id£es  ni  penchants  inn£s."  —  "  Code,"  p.  52. 
Cf.  Helvetius,  where  the  ideas  said  to  be  innate  are  only  those  most 
familiar  to  us,  the  result  of  education,  culture,  and  habit.  "  System 
of  Nature,"  translation,  p.  15. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          253 

linked  together  in  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect. 
From  the  biblical  account,  where,  in  a  lost  paradise, 
perfect  goodness  was  coupled  with  perfect  happiness, 
down  to  the  period  of  the  Revolution  this  idea  fdund 
a  great  variety  of  supporters.  Morelly  partook  of  the 
same  delightful  optimism,  that  to  make  people  good 
was  possible,  and  that  perfect  happiness  would  certainly 
follow.  He  is  not  the  only  social  reformer  to  follow 
this  fond  delusion. 

As  Rousseau  and  Montesquieu  had  done,  Morelly 
took  as  his  type  the  Indians  of  North  America.  In  this 
choice  he  shows  the  use  he  made  of  the  inductive 
method  and  seems  to  have  had  some  facts  as  a  basis 
for  his  theories.  He  had  probably  learned  the  parlance 
of  the  times  from  Mrs.  Behn  and  Rousseau.  He 
discussed  the  noble  Indian  as  illustrative  of  a  people 
living  under  primitive  conditions,  where  happiness  and 
goodness  were  synonymous.  Against  the  gay  but 
superficial  society  of  eighteenth-century  France,  he  set 
the  humbler  modes  and  simpler  manners  of  primitive 
man  marked  by  lofty  virtues,  much  as  Tacitus  had  done 
with  the  early  Germans  for  the  degenerate  Romans.1 

This  theory,  as  advanced  by  Morelly,  bears  the  philo- 
sophical rather  than  the  theological  stamp.  His  work 
sounds  more  modern  and  up  to  date  than  that  of  earlier 
writers ;  it  savors  of  a  type  of  speculative,  political,  and 

1  Tacitus,  "Germania." 


254     SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

social  philosophy ;  his  ideas  are  more  legal  and  definite. 
With  him  goodness  does  not  mean  conformity  to  some 
divine  law,  but  a  certain  obedience  to  the  metaphysical 
concept  of  the  "law  of  nature."  His  idea  of  the  right 
to  rule  is  the  divine  right  of  the  people  rather  than  the 
old  divine  theory  of  kingship. 

With  Morelly  the  "good  man"  is  one  who  can  be 
thoroughly  socialized,  whose  individuality  will  be  lost 
in  the  social  whole.  To  him  the  "Fall  of  Man"  means 
his  departure  from  nature's  law,  and  his  social  salva- 
tion can  be  effected  only  through  his  return  to  nature. 
This  was  his  lord  and  father  of  all.  This,  then,  is 
the  basis  of  Morelly's  proposed  new  society.  He 
posits  a  "man  of  nature,"  who  is  the  prototype  of  the 
true  social  unit.  He  is  not  the  "economic  man"  of 
the  economist's  dream,  marked  by  egoism  and  selfish- 
ness; he  is  the  highly  socialized  man.  He  is  not  the 
warlike,  natural  man  portrayed  by  Hobbes,  nor  the 
imperfect  specimen  of  Locke;  he  is  not  the  man  of 
original  sinfulness  set  forth  by  the  theologian.  Man, 
as  Morelly  saw  him,  was  of  good  qualities,  capable  of 
perfectibility  and  fitted  by  the  laws  of  his  being  to  be 
more  completely  socialized.  He  so  pictured  the  car- 
dinal virtues  of  the  primitive  man  as  to  indicate  that 
society  can  be  held  together  without  force  and  can  be 
dominated  by  the  social  elements.  Morelly  then 
denies  the  theory  of  innate  ideas  and  of  original  sin. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          255 

He  denies  that  man  is  essentially,  inherently  evil,  and 
proclaims  the  brighter  doctrine  of  native  goodness. 
He  teaches  the  doctrine  of  human  perfectibility,  and  on 
these  propositions  bases  his  hopes  of  a  regenerated 
society. 

4.  These  philosophic  principles,  held  by  Morelly 
and  his  radical  associates,  though  apparently  very 
impractical,  were  at  bottom  sound  premises  on  which 
to  advance.  The  question  put  and  answered  by  Morelly 
was  this :  Is  the  source  of  evil  and  wrong  to  be  found  in 
society  as  at  present  organized,  or  is  it  traceable  to 
deeper  causes  in  human  nature  itself?  Has  human 
nature  the  inherent  qualities  or  the  lack  of  certain 
qualities  now  dominant,  that  a  new  society  may  be 
constructed  and  social  wrong,  misery,  and  injustice  be 
banished?  The  same  question  was  asked  as  to  the 
common  man's  fitness  to  take  part  in  government, 
when  democracy  was  young.  A  variety  of  answers 
might  be  found ;  nor  is  it  yet  entirely  settled  how  far 
every  person  is  endowed  to  become  a  part  of  the  active 
political  society.  If  the  success  of  society,  politically 
organized,  depends  so  largely  upon  the  possibilities  of  the 
individual  citizen,  the  question  is  certainly  ever  timely 
when  the  chances  of  a  socialistically  organized  industrial 
society  are  under  discussion.  If  democracy  fails,  it 
fails  because  the  common  man  is  not  properly  endowed 
politically.  Should  socialism  be  tried  and  fail,  it  would 


256     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

fail  because  man  is  not  properly  endowed  socially 
and  industrially.1 

Morelly  was  firmly  attached  to  the  environment 
theory  of  evil.  In  this  he  was  followed  by  Robert 
Owen,  whose  whole  system  of  reform  was  based  upon 
the  proposition  that  with  proper  social  and  industrial 
environment  people  will  generally  be  good  and  do  good.2 
Morelly  claimed  that  evil  arose  from  secondary  and  not 
from  primary  causes.  As  the  cause  of  evil  is  not  in 
man,  the  element  of  society,  but  in  the  maladjustment 
of  social  forces,  it  can  therefore  be  eradicated,  and 
society  is  not  hopeless.  Its  hope  lies  in  the  destruction 
of  those  institutions  whereby  the  social  instincts  are 
perverted  into  selfishness.  Society  must  therefore  be 
reduced  to  its  original  elements  and  reorganized  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  of  nature. 

For  Morelly  history  meant  little  or  nothing.  It 
taught  no  lessons  and  told  only  of  man's  oppression  by 
institutions  of  his  own  creation  to  which  he  had  sub- 
mitted. It  was  an  abstract  man  of  social  instincts 
and  of  unchangeable  qualities  that  formed  the  basis 
of  the  social  theorizing  of  Morelly.  It  was  the  same 
general  concept  that  was  embodied  in  the  "economic 
man."  The  same  idea  underlies  the  deductions 

1  On  this  see  Schaffle,  "The  Impossibility  of  Social  Democracy." 
1  Robert  Owen,  "New  View  of  Society  " ;  or  essays  on  the  forma- 
tion of  the  human  character,  London,  1816. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          257 

of  Adam  Smith,  Malthus,  and  Ricardo.  It  was  this 
abstraction  that  was  made  use  of  by  such  advocates  of 
perfectibility  as  Godwin,  Helve'tius,  Shelley,  and  Jeffer- 
son. It  was  this  idea  of  a  constant  social  unit  in  a 
static  state  that  had  such  influence  in  theory  and  practice 
until  Hegel  in  philosophy,  Savigny  in  law,  Darwin  in 
science,  Knies  and  Hildebrand  in  economics,  and 
Karl  Marx  in  socialism  taught  the  lesson  of  evolution 
in  all  lines,  and  banished  the  myths  of  "man  of  nature," 
"economic  man,"  etc.,  into  the  limbo  of  forgotten  things. 

The  early  theories  taught  that  man  was  inherently 
and  normally  bad;  the  later  revolutionary  doctrines 
treat  him  as  a  creature  of  infinite  social  and  political 
possibilities  if  he  can  but  be  set  free  from  thraldom  to 
existing  institutions.  Of  these  the  one  treated  as  of 
prime  importance  was  private  property.  This,  then,  is 
the  starting-point  for  the  destructive  work  of  Morelly. 

5.  Private  property,  says  Morelly,  is  a  great  master- 
ing fact  in  society  which  determines  the  whole  course 
of  civilization ;  from  it  all  evils  flow,  and  its  abandon- 
ment would  solve  all  the  social  problems.1 

On  the  evils  of  the  regime  of  property  he  says:  "It 

1  "  Depuis  le  sceptre  jusqu'a  la  houlette,  depuis  la  tiare  jusqu'a  le 
plus  vil  froc,  si  1'on  demande  qui  gouverne  les  hommes,  la  re*ponse 
est  facile ;  Pinte're't  personnel  ou  un  inte*r£t  Stranger  que  la  vanit6  fait 
adopter,  et  qui  est  toujours  tributaire  du  premier,  mais  de  qui  ces 
monstres  tiennent-ils  le  jour?  de  la  proprie'te*. "  —  "Code  de  la 
Nature,"  pp.  100-101. 


2$8      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

is  vain  to  search  for  a  perfect  state  of  liberty  and  social 
progress  when  a  tyrant  of  private  property  continues 
to  oppress  mankind.  It  is  vain  to  discuss  the  form  of 
government;  the  means  of  establishing  republics;  all 
this  is  vain  so  long  as  private  property  subsists  to 
break  up  social  harmony  and  make  mankind  indolent, 
jealous,  ambitious,  and  unsocial."  Of  all  schemes, 
whether  under  aristocracy,  monarchy,  or  democracy, 
Morelly  says  with  much  emphasis:  "Quel  freles  sup- 
ports, Grand  Dieu !  tous  portent  plus  ou  moins  sur 
la  propriety  et  1'inte'ret  les  plus  ruineux  de  tous  les 
fondements."  l  He  taught  that  the  leading  feature 
in  the  present  civilization  was  private  property;  and 
its  unhappy  outgrowths  were  the  legion  of  evils  which 
curse  society. 

Right  here  he  grasped  an  idea  which  later  socialism 
has  taught.  Changes  in  the  form  of  government  are 
superficial  so  long  as  society  is  economically  unbalanced. 
Property  keeps  society  ever  in  a  state  of  uncertain 
equilibrium.  Why,  he  asks,  should  social  welfare  and 
stability  be  constantly  menaced  by  that  thing  best 
fitted  and  inclined  to  destroy  them ;  namely,  property  ? 
Such  has  been  the  evil  that  has  overthrown  the  most 
flourishing  empires  while  nothing  has  done  more  to 
stir  the  savage  spirit  of  revolution  than  has  property. 
With  some  such  statements,  often  repeated,  Morelly 

1  "  Code  de  la  Nature,"  p.  102. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS   OF   MORELLY          259 

condemns  property  as  the  root  of  social  evils  and 
misery. 

Communism  in  property,  as  advocated  by  Morelly, 
and  in  fact  by  most  of  its  adherents,  does  not  mean  the 
abandonment  of  the  idea  of  ownership  of  property 
nor  of  saving  and  acquisition.  It  does  not  imply  the 
rejection  of  these,  any  more  than  does  the  acceptance  of 
democracy  in  place  of  monarchy  mean  to  abandon 
sovereignty  and  abrogate  control  and  government. 

Communism  would  transfer  the  control  of  property 
from  the  individuals  to  the  community,  conceived  of  as 
a  unity.  Democracy  involves  the  transfer  of  sovereignty 
from  a  monarch  to  the  separate  individuals,  upon  a 
decidedly  individualistic  basis.  Communism  seeks  the 
socialization  of  the  rights  of  property.  Democracy 
means  the  decentralization  of  the  rights  of  sovereignty. 
It  is  in  this  respect  that  all  socialism,  of  a  radical  type, 
conflicts  with  individualism.  It  strikes  at  the  main 
factor  in  the  development  of  man's  place  and  power 
in  society ;  that  is,  his  control  over  property.  It  could 
be  easily  shown  that  the  history  of  the  evolution  of 
property  and  of  the  property  idea  in  the  social  classes 
would  fairly  synchronize  with  the  growth  of  liberty 
and  of  individualism  from  slavery  through  serfdom  up 
to  the  free  laborer  and  to  the  freer  capitalist  employer. 

Furthermore,  communism,  as  here  taught,  does  not 
contemplate  the  equal  division  of  goods;  it  does  not 


26O     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

propose  to  divide  them  at  all.  It  means  the  concen- 
tration of  all  goods  in  the  hands  of  the  communal  group. 
The  distribution  of  surplus- values  flowing  from  the  in- 
dustrial process  must  find  another  basis  than  the  one 
where  society  rests  on  private  ownership  of  the  social 
wealth.  Here  the  right  to  the  shares  of  surplus- value 
rests  upon,  and  is  to  some  extent  at  least  proportionate 
to,  the  control  over  the  factors  of  production.  The 
fact  of  private  ownership  has  for  ages  been  the  rather 
simple  and,  under  the  existing  re'girne,  fairly  equitable 
principle  for  the  distribution  of  the  social  income. 
Ownership  of  wife  or  of  slave,  of  serf  or  of  land,  and 
later  of  capital  has  been  at  least  a  working  principle 
for  distribution.  With  the  abandonment  of  private 
property,  however,  some  new  norm  must  be  discovered 
and  applied.  Several  have  been  advanced.  That  all 
share  alike,  is  the  simplest  one  and,  ignoring  equity, 
would  be  workable.  That  each  share  according  to  his 
wants  is  another,  more  equitable  but  less  practical. 
The  theory  of  Morelly  is  discussed  under  his  construc- 
tive scheme. 

As  to  the  social  utility  of  the  proposed  system  Morelly 
had  no  doubt ;  not  only  did  he  deny  the  natural  rights 
justification  of  property,  but  he  rejected  the  theory  then 
so  prevalent,  that  property  was  socially  necessary. 
Over  this  question  Mably  and  Mercier  had  debated, 
the  latter  claiming  that  property  was  an  essential 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          261 

part  of  the  social  organization;  this  Mably  denied. 
In  England  Harrington  had  first  urged  the  vital  rela- 
tionship between  property  and  social  stability ;  *  while 
in  France  it  became  a  tenet  of  the  physiocratic  school. 
Rousseau  had  conceded  much  to  this  view,  and  Mably 
saw  much  reason  in  it.  Morelly  was,  therefore,  one  of 
the  most  radical  of  this  group  and  paved  the  way  for 
those  more  extreme  revolutionary  theorists,  Brissot  and 
Babeuf.2  In  this  respect  Morelly  was  a  thorough- 
going socialist  as  the  term  is  interpreted  in  this  essay. 
He  was  not  a  reformer  nor  philanthropist ;  he  had  no 
confidence  in  reforming  the  existing  society;  he  de- 
manded a  new  structure. 

6.  One  of  the  problems  which  all  types  of  reformers, 
moral,  political,  and  social,  must  face,  is  to  supply  the 
proper  motive  to  efficient  and  worthy  action.  One  of 
the  fundamental  objections  urged  against  socialism 
since  the  days  of  Plato  is  that  it  would  rob  society  of 
its  underlying  and  propelling  motive.  It  is  claimed  that 
there  is  danger  of  creating  a  nerveless  society;  that  to 
interfere  with  private  property,  with  individual  initia- 
tive, and  with  the  personal  control  over  one's  economic 
course,  would  limit  production,  check  progress,  and 
work  a  general  wreck  of  industrial  prosperity. 

To  this  difficulty  Morelly  seriously  addressed  himself. 
He  admitted  that  there  is  a  strong  economic  motive 

1  Harrington,  "Oceana."  2  See  Ch.  VIII.,  infra. 


262     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

taken  away  when  private  property  and  the  incentive 
to  saving  are  abandoned.  He  denied,  however,  that 
idleness  would  make  shipwreck  of  society  thus  organized. 
The  great  mass  of  idleness  he  saw  about  him  he  at- 
tributed to  the  facts  of  property  and  the  right  of  in- 
heritance.1 Do  away  with  these  and  he  believed  that 
the  idle  class,  and  idleness  in  all  classes,  would  dis- 
appear. Here  he  saw  a  compensation  for  any  loss  of 
incentive  to  labor.  Industry  would  become  a  necessity 
for  all,  and  the  army  of  the  employed  would  be  much 
enlarged.  Morelly's  "economic  man"  was  prompted 
by  vastly  different  motives  from  those  driving  on  the 
economic  man  in  the  pecuniary  age.  He  would  be  in- 
duced to  labor  by  economic  motives  as  all  peoples  have 
been,  even  the  American  Indians,  whom  he  uses  as 
examples.  There  is,  however,  a  vast  difference  in  the 
economy  of  the  primitive  man  and  that  of  the  modern 
economic  man.  One  has  the  motives  arising  from 
a  desire  for  profits,  for  acquisition,  for  property;  the 
other  toils  only  for  the  necessary  and  useful  things; 
one  is  interested  in  exchange,  the  other  in  use, 
values. 

Moreover,  Morelly  points  out  a  second  fact,  and  in 
this  he  foreshadows  modern  theories.  It  is  not  labor 
that  men  avoid,  it  is  the  unpleasantness  of  it.  Once 
make  labor  attractive,  make  idleness  repulsive,  weari- 

1  "Code  de  la  Nature,"  p.  61. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          263 

some,  and  unpopular,  and  the  problem  is  solved.1  In 
the  future  state  as  depicted  by  Morelly,  as  hi  that  of 
the  fair  dreams  of  Fourier,  labor  was  to  be  enjoyable 
and  pain  and  ennui  would  arise  from  idleness.  In  this 
respect  Morelly  was  a  direct  forerunner  of  Fourier.2 

There  was,  furthermore,  a  broader  principle  involved 
in  the  theory  of  Morelly.  His  scheme  of  socialization 
involved  the  bringing  into  private  life  a  larger  public 
purpose  as  regards  industrial  effort.  In  the  social 
state  of  the  future,  men  are  to  feel  themselves  a  part  of 
the  state  from  an  industrial,  as  they  do  now  from  a  civil, 
standpoint.3  The  same  energy,  unselfishness,  and  de- 
votion which  mark  the  citizen's  performance  of  civic 
duty  would  characterize  the  economic  activity  of  the 
citizens  of  this  new  social  state. 

7.  Approaching  more  closely  to  the  details  of  Morelly's 
scheme,  some  interesting  suggestions  appear.  There 
was  no  private  ownership  of  productive  goods;  only 
those  things  for  immediate  use  could  be  held  privately.4 
There  was  to  be  public  control  of  industry  and  every 
person  was  to  become  a  public  servant.  "Tout  citoyen 
sera  homme  public,  sustente",  entretenu,  et  occupe 
aux  de"pens  du  public."  5  The  industrial  schemes  of 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  45-58.  J  "  Basiliade,"  p.  28. 

8  Popularly  urged  to-day  as  a  means  whereby  civic  interest  might 
be  awakened. 

•  "  Code  de  la  Nature,"  p.  152.  •  Ibid. 


264     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

Morelly  foreshadow  the  later  French  collectivism.1  In 
his  ideal  society  much  attention  is  paid  to  the  creation 
of  primary  utilities  of  which  agricultural  products  have 
the  preference.  Morelly  showed  marked  physiocratic 
tendencies.  Each  city  was  to  maintain  as  large  a  piece 
of  land  as  was  necessary  for  the  inhabitants.  Every 
citizen  after  his  twentieth  year  was  compelled  to  work 
at  agriculture  for  five  years.  One  chapter  of  the 
"Code"  is  devoted  to  a  discussion  of  the  means  and 
ends  of  agriculture. 

The  plan  of  industrial  organization  set  forth  is  in  the 
form  of  local  collectivism;  it  was  paternal,  somewhat 
after  the  manner  of  a  mediaeval  craft -guild.  Members 
of  the  professions  were  divided  into  groups  of  ten  or 
twenty  laborers  and  placed  under  a  master.  These 
groups  were  close  corporations,  admission  being  gained 
by  long  apprenticeship  directed  to  giving  great  pro- 
ficiency in  the  trade. 

8.  Every  one  must  labor  in  this  society.  There  were 
to  be  no  drones  in  this  social  hive.  There  was  no 
provision  for  a  leisure  class  either  at  the  top  or  bottom 
of  the  social  scale.  Every  man  was  born  into  the  in- 
dustrial state,  as  in  the-  Middle  Ages  every  one  was  born 
into  the  church,  or  by  modern  polity  every  one  is  born 
into  the  civil  state.  All  must,  therefore,  prepare  for 

1  Cf.  plans  of  Vidal  and  Pecqueur  outlined  in  their  works  already 
cited. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          265 

a  place  in  industrial  society,  a  fact  applied  to-day  from 
a  civil  standpoint  in  the  systems  of  compulsory  educa- 
tion. The  industries  were  open  except  where  groups 
were  overcrowded;  in  such  cases  the  magistrates  per- 
formed the  task  now  allotted  to  free  competition ;  that 
is,  to  equalize  the  labor  supply.1  After  the  citizens  had 
spent  the  proper  time  at  agriculture  they  were  allowed 
to  enter  the  various  trades  —  a  decided  protest  against 
the  guild  system  then  dominant  in  France  against 
which  Turgot  directed  one  of  his  six  edicts. 

The  length  of  the  labor  day  is  left  less  definite  by 
Morelly  than  by  the  other  writers  examined.  The 
masters  of  the  various  trades  were  to  fix  the  length  of 
day.  The  days  of  rest  were,  however,  fixed.  Each 
fifteenth  day  was  to  be  a  public  holiday.  It  will  be  re- 
called that  the  Revolutionary  Assembly  of  1793  made 
every  tenth  day  a  holiday. 

9.  Morelly  did  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  kern  of 
the  social  problem  is,  and  always  has  been,  the  problem 
of  the  distribution  of  the  product  of  industry  among 
the  producers  in  the  regime  of  private,  but  among  the 
consumers  under  a  system  of  communistic,  industry. 
In  every  scheme  of  social  organization  the  greatest 
difficulty  lies  here,  and  communism  has  by  no  means 
solved  it  even  theoretically,  to  say  nothing  of  what  might 
come  in  practice.  While  it  is  not  stated  clearly,  the 
1 "  Code  de  la  Nature,"  p.  160. 


266     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

theory  of  Morelly  seems  to  be  that  "each  is  to  labor 
according  to  his  ability  and  share  according  to  his 
needs."  *  (Scheme  of  Saint-Simon.) 

Morelly  divides  wealth  into  "natural  goods"  and 
"artificial  goods."  These  he  classifies  as  durable  and 
transient.  From  a  standpoint  of  value  they  are  either 
necessaries  or  luxuries.  Goods  for  general  use  were  to 
be  stored  in  magazines  for  regular  distribution  among 
the  people.  This  is,  of  course,  a  distribution  of  goods 
and  not  of  values.  Productive  goods  were  also  stored 
and  given  out  to  the  ateliers  as  the  workmen  had 
need.2  Goods  were  measured  and  distributed  quan- 
titatively, no  attention  being  paid  to  the  problem  of 
values.  The  plan  was  to  apportion  goods  according 
to  the  primary  needs  of  the  people.3 

Morelly  conceived  of  a  society  in  which  no  exchange 
of  values  took  place;  or  if  any,  it  was  of  the  simplest 
form  of  service  against  consumable  goods.  No  goods 
were  to  be  sold  and  no  mercantile  profits  were  allowed. 
In  this  regard,  Morelly  shows  his  connection  with 
modern  socialism.  "  Profits  "  have  ever  been  objec- 
tionable to  radical  thinkers  of  this  type.  While  no 
exact  statement  is  made  of  "surplus-value,"  of  "un- 
earned increment,"  or  of  "  exploitation  of  labor,"  yet  in 

'"Code,"  pp.  153  and  154.  l  Ibid.,  pp.  153-155. 

8  "  Ces  productions  de  toute  espece  seront  dgnombrees  et  leur 
quantit6  sera  proportionnee,  soit  au  nombre  des  citoyens  de  chaque 
cite",  soit  au  nombre  des  citoyens  qui  en  usent."  —  "Code,"  p.  154. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY         267 

essence  this  is  what  Morelly  protests  against.  What  he 
says  on  this  point  is  not  great  in  amount ;  it  is  not  very 
clear  in  form ;  it  does,  however,  contain  the  germ  of  the 
most  important  contention  of  all  socialism.  Stripped 
of  its  scientific  nomenclature,  freed  from  much  of  its 
verbiage,  separated  from  the  sophistry  and  dialectic 
used  as  a  safe  statement  of  dangerous  doctrine  —  rid 
of  all  these,  the  tenets  of  socialism  are  after  all  simple. 
They  may  be  reduced  to  about  two  principles:  that 
sacrifice  must  rest  upon  physical  effort  and  that  all 
should  sacrifice  alike. 

Epigrammatically  put,  socialism  means,  there  shall 
be  no  idle  class.  It  means  a  reduction  of  modern, 
complex  society  to  a  state  of  primitive  society;  a  con- 
dition where  all  must  labor  and  labor  alike.  It  is 
probably  not  so  much  the  luxuries  of  the  propertied 
class  that  create  socialist  sentiment,  as  the  so-called 
idleness.  Hence  the  bitter  attack  of  all  socialism  on 
that  form  of  social  and  industrial  organization  under 
which  a  certain  portion  of  society  can  live  without 
laboring.  Here  then  is  the  chief  fact  in  the  work  of 
Morelly :  society  must  be  so  constructed  that  all  sources 
of  income  are  rejected  except  labor.  Labor  being 
possessed  by  all  men,  a  condition  of  lasting  equality 
will  be  produced. 

In  sharp  contrast  to  the  mercantile  theory  just 
passing  in  Europe,  which  had  so  long  held  to  the  pecun- 


268     SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

iary  advantages  of  foreign  commerce,  Morelly  held 
that  foreign  commerce  should  exist  merely  to  supply 
necessary  commodities  for  consumption,  which  the 
respective  countries  could  not  well  produce.  All  was 
to  be  so  arranged  that  profits,  and  specially  those  ex- 
pressed in  money,  should  not  accrue. 

10.  The  leading  feature  of  Morelly's  scheme  of 
political  organization  is  his  adherence  to  the  natural 
rights  doctrine.  He  advises  a  form  of  political  society 
which  he  calls  democracy,  although  it  bears  the  ear- 
marks of  a  patriarchal  form  of  state.  He  defines  a 
democracy  as  a  society  where  the  people  consent  to  obey 
the  laws  of  nature  and  live  under  the  command  of 
the  father  of  the  families.1  Monarchy,  he  says,  is  the 
most  dangerous  and  least  stable  form  of  government, 
especially  when  based  on  private  property ;  with 
this  institution  abolished,  monarchy  would  be  fairly 
stable.2 

Morelly  taught  that  the  early  form  of  society  and 
government  was  patriarchal.  Among  the  several  causes 
which  led  to  its  breakup  were  the  increase  of  population, 
migration,  and  the  accompanying  growth  of  private 
property.  Community  of  feeling  and  of  interests 
arising  from  consanguinity  form  the  original  basis  of 
social  unity.  The  increase  of  population  broke  up 

1  He  has  the  idea  of  "tacit  consent"  and  of  the  "volont£  ge"ne"rale" 
of  Rousseau.  *  "Code,"  p.  105. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          269 

the  consanguine  groups ;  it  also  made  migration  neces- 
sary, and  the  meeting  of  strange  groups  still  further 
estranged  the  members  of  society.  This  led  to  the 
destruction  of  society  based  upon  the  social  principle 
of  mutual  interests  and  created  a  society  where  conflict 
and  not  mutuality  of  interests  was  the  rule.  The 
spirit  of  antagonism  embodied  and  perpetuated  itself 
in  the  institution  of  private  property.  When  this  has 
been  thoroughly  developed,  society,  in  Morelly's  mean- 
ing, ceases,  and  the  long  struggle  of  classes  and  their 
interests  begins.  This  is  not  true  society;  it  arises 
from  a  perversion  of  the  social  instincts,  and  true 
socialization  can  only  be  effected  by  the  abandonment 
of  private  property  and  the  reestablishment  of  mutual 
interests.1  He  believed  that  primitive  society  had  com- 
munal property,  that  the  bonds  of  consanguinity  were 
the  earliest  social  ties,  that  private  property  and  its 
associated  brood  of  wrongs  have  their  effects  in  the 
chaos  in  society  and  in  the  loss  of  primitive  social 
harmony. 

Morelly  directly  attacked  the  ruling  forces  in  France. 
The  monarch,  he  said,  was  on  a  very  unstable  throne. 
The  religious  and  civil  powers  had  united  to  perpetuate 

1  "  La  raison,  dis  je,  de  tous  ces  effets  peut  se  tirer  de  1'obstination 
ge'ne'rale  des  le*gislateurs  a  rompre  ou  laisser  rompre  le  premier  lien 
de  toute  sociabilite*  par  des  possessions  usurpers  sur  le  fonds  qui 
devait  indivisiblement  appartenir  a  I'humanite'  entiere." —  "Code," 
p.  87. 


270      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

their  power.1  Their  supreme  power  was,  however, 
more  seeming  than  real.  On  the  eve  of  that  Revolu- 
tion which,  as  Carlyle  says,  did  so  much  to  reduce 
"chimeras  to  realities,"  these  teachings  of  Morelly 
seem  prophetic.  In  view  of  the  struggle  so  soon  to  be 
waged,  these  charges  of  tyranny  and  misrule  were  as 
timely  as  they  were  bold  and  outspoken.  In  his  brief 
but  clear  arraignment  of  the  social  and  political  insti- 
tutions with  their  hollowness  and  mockery,  one  sees  a 
severe  criticism  not  unlike  the  more  subtile  attack  of 
Sir  Thomas  More  on  the  English  society  of  his  day. 

Morelly  accepts  the  contract  theory  of  society. 
Thus  organized  rulers  are  viewed  only  as  the  servants 
of  the  people  and  rule  only  by  their  consent.  The  im- 
prescriptible rights  of  the  people  hold  as  against  the 
will  of  the  rulers.2  The  senate  was  to  keep  exact  ac- 
count of  the  number  of  persons  in  each  tribe  and  also 
the  demand  for  employment  in  each.  It  had  power  in 
the  most  arbitrary  fashion  to  equalize  population  groups. 
He  advised  the  regulation  of  the  increase  of  the  popu- 
lation so  as  to  keep  the  birthrate  and  deathrate  alike. 
This  sums  up  what  he  had  to  say  on  the  problem  of 
population.  A  complete  set  of  rules  is  laid  down  for 
the  regulation  of  the  family  group  whose  sphere  the 

1  "  Ces  examples  prouvent  done  que  dans  le  monde  moral  con- 
struit  comme  il  est  par  des  mains  mortelles,  il  n'y  a  ni  veritable  subor- 
dination ni  veritable  liberte"."  —  "  Code,"  p.  100. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  109. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY 

public  power  was  supposed  to  invade  at  will.  His 
teachings  on  family  life,  however,  were  wholesome  and 
conservative.  To  him  the  destruction  of  private 
property  did  not  necessitate  the  ruin  of  the  family. 
To  most  such  advocates  the  two  institutions  stand  or 
fall  together.1 

1 1 .  The  educational  plans  of  Morelly  have  been  about 
as  much  neglected  as  have  his  social  ideas ;  yet  he  was, 
if  not  the  originator,  then  the  inspirer  of  much  that 
Rousseau  taught.  It  is  not  possible  here  to  trace  these 
ideas  at  length,  nor  to  establish  the  debt  Rousseau  owes 
him  in  connection  with  his  "  Emile."  Certain  it  is  that 
their  lines  of  thought  were  very  similar. 

Morelly  advocated  a  natural  system  of  education. 
The  necessary  relationship  between  the  stages  of  mental 
development  and  the  matter  studied,  he  carefully  re- 
garded. The  various  subjects  are  added  only  as  the 
reason  is  developed  to  appreciate  them.2  He  also 
carefully  pointed  out  the  public  purpose  of  education 
and  its  relation  to  the  welfare  of  the  state.  Very  early 
the  child  was  to  be  taught  the  laws  of  the  state  and  to 
respect  established  authority.3  The  youths  were  cul- 
tured in  those  lines  at  once  fitted  to  further  the  in- 
dividual interests  and  the  common  welfare.  Education 

1  Cf .  Engels,  "  Ursprung  der  Familie,  des  Privat  eigenthums  und 
des  Staats,"  1892,  where  the  family  is  made  the  foundation  of  the 
institution  of  property. 

2  "Code,"  pp.  170.  '  Ibid.,  p.  171-172. 


2/2      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

must  also  serve  to  eradicate  certain  dangerous  social 
ideas  —  among  them  the  desire  for  private  property. 
In  his  society  there  was  to  be  complete  freedom  of 
thought  and  toleration  in  religion,  only  writings  touch- 
ing morals  or  the  public  welfare  were  to  be  cen- 
sored.1 

The  clearest  suggestions  as  to  the  need  and  nature 
of  the  technical  schools,  now  so  widely  established  in 
France,  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Morelly.  He 
laid  emphasis  on  the  importance  of  training  in  the 
industrial  arts,  and  as  all  must  labor  in  his  society,  none 
were  exempt  from  this  technical  training.  His  plan 
suggests  the  English  apprentice-laws. 

As  has  been  said,  all  the  parts  of  Morelly's  scheme 
were  highly  artificial.  So  with  his  educational  plans. 
The  purpose  of  education  was  the  common  welfare. 
When  all  over  Europe  there  was  education  for  the  upper 
classes  alone,  he  advocated  a  universal  system.  When 
the  educational  system  was  a  revenue-producing  insti- 
tution, Morelly  proposed  not  only  free  but  compulsory 
education.  While  learning  was  still  advancing  along 
the  narrow  lines  of  the  classics,  bearing  the  marks  of 
mediaeval  culture,  Morelly  proposed  the  founding  of 
industrial  and  technical  schools  to  better  prepare  the 
masses  for  practical  life.  His  educational  ideas  were 
far  advanced  and  he  must  be  credited  with  very  sane 

1"Code,"  pp.  172-173. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          273 

notions  in  this  line  as  shown  by  such  other  radicals  as 
Rousseau,  Owens,  and  Fourier. 

12.  In  striking  contrast  with  some  of  the  rising 
doctrines  of  his  age  stand  the  ideas  and  teachings  of 
Morelly.  Helve'tius,  in  his  now  almost  forgotten  work, 
"Essays  on  the  Human  Mind,"  had  taught  that  self- 
interest  was  the  dominant  motive  in  life.  Adam  Smith, 
leaving  aside  his  "Theory  of  Moral  Sentiments" 
marked  by  the  lesson  of  altruism,  took  up  the  other  side 
of  life  —  its  extreme  selfishness  —  and  constructed  one 
of  the  most  useful  but  satirical  myths,  the  "Economic 
Man."  Legislators  and  philosophers  were  discussing 
whether  the  public  and  private  interests  could  be  rec- 
onciled. During  this  time  Morelly  had  urged  that 
man's  highest  happiness  is  reached  as  he  works  in  the 
interests  of  the  social  aggregate,  and  as  a  servant  of  all. 
He  taught  that  public  interest  and  private  welfare  are 
one  and  the  same  thing,  and  attainable  through  the 
establishment  of  a  community  of  interests. 

Out  of  the  prevailing  sensationalist  philosophy 
naturally  came  an  extreme  individualistic  tendency  in 
social  teaching;  where  sensation  is  made  the  basis  of 
all  knowledge,  and  the  happiness  experienced  the 
highest  test  of  good,  individual  pleasure  is  sure  to  be- 
come the  touchstone  of  right  social  action  and  selfish- 
ness the  dominant  creed  of  life.  The  utility  theory  of 
value,  the  pleasure  and  pain  doctrine  of  morals,  and  the 


2/4     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

state  of  nature  theory  of  rights  —  all  these,  are  insepa- 
rable from  an  individualistic  view  of  man  and  his  social 
relations.  Whether  consistent  or  not,  Morelly  protests 
against  these  desocializing  ideas.  Morelly  sees  the 
happiness  and  welfare  of  the  whole  state  the  thing  to 
be  sought  for  as  Plato  had  taught  so  long  before; 
happiness  dwells  neither  in  this  class  nor  in  that,  but 
in  the  state  as  a  whole.  *  In  the  prevailing  English 
thought,  marked  by  extreme  individualism,  social  wel- 
fare was  hoped  for  as  the  individual  followed  his  own 
selfish  ends;  in  the  teaching  of  Morelly  social  welfare 
was  expected  as  man  became  absorbed  and  incorporated 
in  the  state.2 

The  dominant  motive  in  the  society  portrayed  by 
Morelly  arises  from  the  social  instincts.  In  fact  his 
study  of  what  might  be  called  an  enlightened  self-love 
led  him  to  make  a  most  valuable  contribution  to  social 
thought.  In  his  discussion  of  the  human  passions  he 
has  anticipated  the  work  of  Fourier  in  the  theory  of  the 
"attraction  passionelle."  Morelly  considered  none  of 
the  human  passions  as  wrong  nor  harmful ;  all  were  to 
be  developed  and  in  this  way  a  more  perfect  socializa- 
tion could  be  attained.  It  is  this  type  of  socialized 
egoism  that  Morelly  believes  will  lead  to  the  highest 

'"Republic,"  Jowett's  translation,  pp.  107-108. 
1  Dowden,  "The    French  Revolution  and  English   Literature," 
p.  7. 


THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  MORELLY          2/5 

social  action.1  Moreily  here  reaches  a  conclusion  made 
so  much  of  later  by  Fourier.  Both  held  that,  as  in 
the  physical  world,  one  dominant  force  rules ;  so  in  the 
moral  world  there  is  one  controlling  power.  With 
Moreily  it  is  enlightened  self-love;  with  Fourier  it  is 
the  "attraction  passionelle." 

1  "  L'amour  de  nous  memes  est  ce  mobile  general  qui  nous  pousse 
vers  le  bien ;  et  les  passions  dont  il  est  la  source  prennent  leurs  noms 
des  degre"s  de  force  qui  nous  en  approchent  ou  nous  en  eloignent." 
—  "L'Essai  sur  le  coeur  humain,"  London,  1746. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS 

i.  There  had  been  then,  previous  to  the  Revolution, 
a  certain  recognition  of  social  as  well  as  of  political 
wrongs  and  inequalities.  The  protest  against  these 
conditions  was  not  made  directly  against  any  class,  nor 
was  it  taken  up  by  any  distinct  order  of  society.  There 
was  no  capitalist  class  nor  any  proletariat  class.1  This 
very  indefinite  protest,  this  rather  vague,  anti-social 
teaching,  ended  with  the  Revolution,  when  a  definite 
attack  was  made  on  existing  institutions  and  a  class- 
struggle  began.  At  this  time  the  labor-class  or  the 
proletaire,  as  the  French  came  to  call  the  propertyless 
class,  began  a  struggle  for  recognition  and  a  place  in 
society.  As  Buonarroti  says:  "Besides,  it  was  the 
general  conviction  that  the  zeal  of  the  Proletarians,  the 
only  true  supporters  of  equality,  would  redouble  when 
they  saw  executed,  from  the  very  outset  of  the  insur- 
rection, those  engagements,  so  many  times  postponed, 
by  which  their  hard  lot  was  to  be  ameliorated ;  and  the 

1  Jaures,  "Histoire  Sociaiiste"  (sous  la  Direction  de  Jean  Jaures), 
Vol.  I,  p.  4. 

276 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  2/7 

secret  Directory  felt  the  greater  confidence  in  the  forces 
from  the  circumstance  that  its  agents,  while  describing 
the  people's  impatience,  boldly  demanded  of  it  the 
signal  of  battle."  * 

Without  either  going  into  a  study  of  those  radical 
measures,  suggested  in  France  by  the  countless  cahiers 
with  which  the  Assembly  was  flooded,  or  into  the  laws 
actually  proposed  or  passed  in  that  body,  —  a  task 
very  well  done  by  a  recent  writer,  —  notice  will  be 
called  to  a  few  of  the  radical  utterances  of  the  most 
radical  advocates  of  social  innovation  in  France  on  the 
eve  of  and  during  the  period  of  the  Great  Revolution.2 
These  writers  bring  to  a  close  that  radical  aspect  of 
socialism  which  hoped  to  reach  social  justice  and  better-  • 
ment  through  a  wholesale  destruction  of  the  existing 
order  in  so  far  as  it  was  based  upon  private  property. 

The  radicalism  of  the  French  Revolution  was  com- 
munistic only  in  a  limited  sense.  An  attack  was  made 
not  against  property  in  general,  but  only  against  certain 
phases  of  it.  It  was  against  the  abuse  rather  than  the 
use  of  the  institution  that  protest  was  made  and  action 
was  taken.8  Property  rights  resting  upon  the  old  feudal 
regime,  and  those  in  the  possession  of  the  clergy,  were 

1  "History  of  Babeuf's   Conspiracy,"   English  translation,   1836, 
p.  139 ;  cf.  Jaurfes,  op.  tit.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  5  el  seq. 

2  Lichtenberger,    "Le    Socialisme   et   la    Revolution   francaise," 
Paris,  1899. 

B  Cf.  Jaures,  "Etudes  Socialistes,"  Paris,  1902,  p.  91. 


2  78      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

revolutionized.1  No  doubt  the  exemptions  enjoyed  by 
the  upper  classes,  which  freed  them  from  the  burdens 
incident  to  property,  had  accentuated  the  hatred  toward 
the  institution. 

The  final  effect  of  the  agitation  on  the  stability  of 
property  was  greatly  to  strengthen  its  foundations  by 
more  thoroughly  distributing  it,  by  revising  the  laws  of 
inheritance,  and  by  shifting  the  right  of  ownership  from 
the  old  basis  of  feudal  to  the  new  basis  of  positive  law ; 
and  that  passed,  presumably  at  least,  by  the  will  of  a 
democratic  society.2  At  this  time  the  law  was  passed, 
which  is  still  valid  in  France,  compelling  equal  division 
of  property  among  all  heirs.3  There  was  a  twofold 
movement;  a  confiscation  of  land  on  the  part  of  the 
state,  in  the  form  of  those  estates  which  rested  upon 
feudal  rights,  and  then  the  decentralizing  of  these  hold- 
ings through  the  breaking  up  of  those  estates 
and  their  division  among  a  broad  constituency.  By 
thus  creating  a  large  middle-class  of  small  property- 
holders  a  greater  stability  was  given  to  all  social 
institutions.  The  principle  of  private  property  was 

1  Janet,  "Les  engines  du  socialisme  contemporain,"  Paris,  1883, 
p.  6. 

2  Lichtenberger,  "  Le  Socialisme  et  la  Revolution  francaise,"  pp.  61 
ei  seq. 

a  See  Law  of  1 793  on  property  and  inheritance. 
Cf.  Lichtenberger,  op.  tit.,  p.  65;   Jaures,  "Histoire  Socialiste," 
Vol.  I,  pp.  226  et  seq. 


THE   REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  279 

then  given  a  large  and  an  interested  constituency  of 
property-holders. 

Although  there  was  during  the  Revolution  a  strong 
tendency,  widespread  and  active,  to  resist  the  demoraliz- 
ing influences  of  anarchy  and  communism,  there  was 
also  a  considerable  tendency  toward  revolutionary 
socialism  following  the  lead  of  Morelly  and  Mably. 
"The  principle,  once  recognized,  that  the  right  of 
regulating  for  the  general  good,  the  distribution  of 
wealth  and  of  the  labor  that  produces  it,  belongs  to 
society;  and  that  from  inequality  of  distribution  flow 
as  from  an  inexhaustible  source  all  the  calamities  that 
afflict  nations;  it  follows  that  Society  should  provide 
that  this  inequality  be  destroyed  never  to  return."  * 
Such  a  principle  may  not  have  been  universally  or  even 
generally  recognized;  it  had  certainly  been  strongly 
suggested  before  the  Revolution,  and  radical  leaders 
and  writers  did  all  in  their  power,  during  the  great 
movement,  to  have  this  ideal  realized.2  It  actually 
issued  in  a  very  great  expansion  of  the  public  power  into 
the  sphere  of  the  individual  and  the  assumption  by  the 
state  of  very  extended  control.  Did  space  permit,  very 
ample  illustrations  of  this  condition  could  be  given;  as 

1  Buonarroti,  op.  cit.,  p.  151. 

See,  Speeches  of  Mallet  du  Pan,  "Tracts";  also,  "History  of  the 
Brissotins"  by  Desmoulins,  London,  1794. 

2  Cf .  Barnave,  "Introduction   a  la  Revolution   francaise,"  1791, 
Buonarroti,  op.  cit.,  p.  151. 


280      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

in  the  law  of  1793  settling  property  or  the  attempt  of  the 
legislature  to  fix  wages  and  prices,  and  the  decree  of  the 
insurrectionary  committee  involving  a  minute  super- 
vision by  the  government  of  all  the  industrial  processes.1 

2.  In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  the  social  theories 
advanced  during  the  Revolution  are  more  definite  and 
concise.  They  sound  more  modern.  There  is  more 
of  the  class-color  about  them.  They  arise  from  a  dis- 
tinct consciousness  of  class-differences  and  of  the  hard- 
ship of  the  unpropertied  class.  Instead  of  the  earlier 
demand  for  subsistence  for  all,  they  now  demand  a 
right  to  labor.  Laborers  claim  the  right  to  earn  their 
living  and  resent  the  disgrace  of  becoming  public  wards. 
Here  is  a  statement  coming  from  this  period  and  the 
clearest  yet  made  of  socialist  doctrine.  "Labor  is  for 
every  one  an  essential  condition  of  the  social  compact." 

The  general  condemnation  of  private  control  and  of 
the  method  of  distribution  on  that  basis  shows  the  same 
attitude  seen  in  the  writings  of  Morelly.  "The  un- 
equal distribution  of  goods  and  of  labor  is  the  inex- 
haustible source  of  slavery  and  of  all  public  calamities."  2 
In  the  decrees  may  be  found  statements  illustrating  the 
existing  attitude  toward  ownership.  "That  the  pro- 

*  "The  Convention  has  adopted  this  idea  by  decreeing  that  all 
citizens  who  give  up  a  day's  labor  to  the  important  duties  of  political 
debates  in  their  section,  shall  receive  40  sous  a  day  to  be  paid  by  a 
tax  on  the  rich."  —  Speech  of  Brissot,  "  Tracts,"  p.  60. 

2  Buonarroti,  op.  cit.,  p.  118. 


THE   REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  28 1 

prietorship  of  all  the  riches  of  France  resides  essentially 
in  the  French  people,  which  can  alone  determine  the 
repartition  of  them."  l 

The  scheme  set  forth  in  this  decree  was  decidedly  of 
the  Utopian  type.  It  contained  a  plan  whereby  France 
was  to  establish  a  new  social  order.  The  past  was  to  be 
ignored  and  abandoned,  and  a  new  social  system  was 
to  issue.  The  purpose  was  revealed  by  the  opening 
clause,  "The  people  of  Paris  after  having  overthrown 
tyranny,  using  the  right  which  it  has  received  from 
nature,  acknowledges  and  declares  to  the  French  people," 
etc.  In  theory  the  radical  statesmen  adhered  to  the 
law  of  nature ;  they  denied,  however,  that  property  was 
a  natural  right  and  proceeded  to  transfer  it  to  a  basis  of 
positive  law  and  make  of  it  a  civil  right. 

3.  Considerable  effort  has  been  put  forth  recently  to 
show  that  there  were  no  considerable  liberal  or  social- 
istic tendencies  in  the  thought  of  the  Revolution.  Two 
eminent  scholars  and  competent  critics  have  taken  the 
attitude  that  the  French  revolutionary  movement  was 
rather  reactionary  than  radical,  as  touching  those  main 
lines  of  teaching  along  which  socialism  moves.  Griin- 
berg  says  that  the  influence  of  the  socialist  element  in 
the  Revolution  was  very  slight ; 2  that  most  of  the  revo- 
lutionary conventions  were  not  what  to-day  would  be 

1  Decree  of  1793. 

J  Griinberg,  "Revue  d'Economie  Politique,"  1891,  p.  274. 


282      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

called  even  liberal.  Lichtenberger  has  questioned  if 
there  was  any  large  element  of  socialist  sentiment  active 
in  France.1 

It  will  probably  be  conceded,  however,  that  the 
Revolution  was  marked,  if  not  much  influenced,  by  a 
group  of  very  bold,  able,  and  radical  men  who  were 
attached  to  the  propaganda  of  equality,  communism,  and 
radical  social  action  in  general.2  Only  the  most  un- 
certain speculation  can  be  indulged  in  as  to  the  influence 
they  had  on  that  revolutionary  storm  in  the  midst  of 
which  they  found  themselves.  In  conclusion,  then,  a 
brief  review  will  be  made  of  the  leading  ideas  of  that 
radical  group  whose  works  mark  the  close  of  this  period 
of  social  theorizing. 

4.  Of  this  group  the  one  of  whom  least  is  known,  yet 
whose  mode  of  attack  is  most  similar  to  that  of  Morelly, 
is  Boissel.8  His  attack  on  existing  society  was  most 
radical  and  comprehensive.  He  attacked  the  church 
for  the  idleness  and  hypocrisy  of  its  clergy  ;  the  govern- 
ment for  the  deception  and  despotism  of  its  rule;  re- 

1  Lichtenberger,  "Le  Socialisme  et  la  Revolution  francaise,"  pp. 


1  "  .  .  .  Mais  le  parasitisme  de  la  proprie'te'  oisive  qui  ne  laisse  au 
me'tayer  accable*  que  la  moitie  des  fruits  y  est  d^nonce*  aussi."  —  Jaures, 
"Histoire  Socialiste,"  Vol.  I,  p.  226. 

3  Very  little  literature  is  available  relating  to  this  obscure  writer. 
Consult,  F.  Boissel,  "Le  Cat6chisme  du  genre  humain,"  1792; 
also  article,  Grunberg,  "  Franjois  Boissel,"  "  Revue  d'Economie 
Politique,"  1891,  pp.  273-286,  356-383. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS  283 

ligion  for  its  uselessness  and  its  preposterous  claims  to 
supernatural  origin,  and  the  institutions  of  property  and 
the  family  as  being  enemies  of  equality,  liberty,  and 
human  welfare  in  general. 

Boissel  is  one  of  the  first  writers  *  to  recognize  and 
call  attention  to  the  class-struggle  in  the  modern  mean- 
ing of  the  term.  Earlier  writers  had,  to  be  sure,  seen 
the  dividing  line  between  rich  and  poor,  and  given  two 
general  classes  based  upon  their  economic  conditions; 
these  lines  of  cleavage  were  too  obvious  to  escape  atten- 
tion. The  emphasis,  however,  so  far  laid  upon  any 
distinct  economic  class  was  very  slight.  Boissel  gives 
clear  evidence  of  this  growing  class-consciousness  in 
his  response  to  Robespierre  in  the  Tribunal  in  1793. 
"Robespierre,  you  read  yesterday  the  'Declaration  of 
the  Rights'  of  man;  but  I  come  to  read  the  declaration 
of  the  rights  of  the  Sans- Culottes.  The  Sans- Culottes  of 
the  French  Republic  recognize  that  all  their  rights  come 
from  nature,  and  anything  contrary  to  these  are  not 

1  Boissel  was  born  in  1728.  Raised  as  a  Jesuit,  he  was  educated 
for  the  church,  was  later  admitted  to  the  bar,  and  was  elected  to  the 
Parlement  of  Paris  in  1753.  At  the  age  of  sixty  he  entered  with  vigor 
into  the  Revolution.  He  joined  the  Jacobin  party  and  became  a 
radical  of  the  extreme  type.  He  was  specially  active  in  defence  of 
the  Jacobins  against  the  aristocratic  party.  Some  speeches  and 
letters  remain,  but  his  chief  work  is  "  Cat^chisme  du  genre  humain." 

See  the  Speech  by  Desmoulins,  1794,  "Tracts."  Here  he  briefly 
traces  the  slow  rise  of  the  lower-class  to  a  consciousness  of  its  exis- 
tence. 


284      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

binding.  The  rights  of  the  Sans- Culottes  consist  in 
the  faculty  to  reproduce,  feed,  and  clothe  themselves; 
in  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruit  of  the  earth,  our  common 
mother."  1 

5.  Boissel  attacks  property  on  the  grounds  of  the 
natural  rights  argument.  Every  man  has  a  natural 
right  to  existence.  Any  institution  that  prevents  his 
enjoyment  of  this  natural  right  is  injurious  and  perni- 
cious. Property  does  thus  interfere  with  the  exercise  of 
this  right  by  those  who  have  no  property,  denies  them 
a  right  to  existence,  and  hence  contradicts  natural  law. 
It  violates  the  natural  right  of  the  individual  to  his  exist- 
ence. Boissel  held,  as  did  Morelly,  that  property  was 
the  cause  of  all  the  evils  which  curse  mankind.  "  Every- 
where it  gives  rise  to  slavery  and  dependence  of  men 
among  themselves."  2 

Boissel  considers  property  as  merely  an  historical 
category,  a  result  of  false  historical  development.  It 
varies  much  in  its  content  from  age  to  age.  It  earlier 
had  a  much  broader  scope,  including  men,  rivers,  and 
seas.  The  tendency  is  for  property  to  grow  ever  nar- 
rower in  its  reach.  All  property  originated  out  of 
natural  avidity,  egoism,  and  all  types  of  crime  that  are 
common  to  the  natural  constitution.3  Religion,  prop- 

1  Quoted  by  Griinberg,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  5,  p.  284. 

1  Griinberg,  op.  cit.,  p.  364. 

3  "Le  Cate"chisme  du  genre  humain,"  p.  25. 


THE   REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  28$ 

erty,  and  the  family,  he  holds,  were  created  by  man  to 
serve  supposedly  the  highest  social  ends. 

The  final  test,  then,  of  these  institutions  is  their  social 
utility.  When  any  such  institution  ceases  to  be  a  social 
benefit,  it  should  be  abandoned.1  Any  conclusion  as  to 
the  nature  of  property  and  its  service  to  society  must  be 
based  upon  experience  alone.  Experience  shows  that 
these  institutions,  especially  private  property,  have  been 
productive  only  of  social  evil.  It  is  mathematically 
demonstrated,  says  Boissel,  by  the  light  of  the  experience 
of  all  the  centuries,  that  the  division  of  property  and 
of  land  and  the  ownership  of  women  have  divided  and 
impoverished  the  individuals  and  set  one  against  an- 
other, and  the  laws  are  only  citadels  to  keep  the  poor 
in  subjection.2  All  are  born  with  like  needs,  and  the 
earth  should  be  a  table  from  which  all  should  partake.* 

Not  only  is  property  an  evil  in  itself,  but  in  the 
process  of  its  acquisition  social  harmony  is  destroyed. 
It  originated  through  egoism,  insatiable  desire,  violence, 
and  deception.4 

Boissel  opposes  ownership  in  land  on  two  grounds: 
because  land  in  a  particular  manner  is  a  free  gift  of 
nature,  and  also  because  land-ownership  leads  to  a 
special  type  of  social  and  political  usurpation  through 

1  Ibid.,  p.  6. 

2 "  Le  Code  Civil  de  la  France  ou  le  Flambeau  de  la  Liberte","  p.  9. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  10.  « "Le  Cate'chisme,"  pp.  92-93. 


286      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

the  noble  class.1  His  general  protest,  however,  is 
against  the  system  of  property  as  being  against  the  law 
of  nature.  It  is,  he  says,  a  monstrosity.2  Instead  of 
furthering  human  progress  it  has  checked  and  destroyed 
it.  Nature  knows  no  property  rights.  In  civilization, 
through  the  struggle  for  property,  the  good  qualities  of 
man  are  perverted.8 

6.  As  has  been  said,  the  denial  of  the  old  canons  of 
distribution  requires  that  new  ones  be  set  up.     On  this 
subject  Boissel  said  very  little,  but  this  little  is  of  a 
considerable  interest.    He  has  stated  quite  clearly  a 
theory  much  used  by  later  socialism ;  namely,  that  each 
should  share  according  to  his  needs.4 

7.  In  his  treatment  of  the  real  worth  of  culture  and 
society  at  large,  Boissel  clearly  shows  the  influence  of 
Rousseau.    The  latter  viewed  private  property  as  a 
main  pillar  in  the  social  structure  and  overlooked  its 
evils  in  view  of  the  larger  evil  of  civilization  itself;  so 
Boissel,  while  condemning  property,  had  a  still  greater 
contempt  for  the  social  system  with  all  its  sham,  im- 
posture, and  fraud.5    Society  itself,  based  as  it  is  upon 

1 "  Le  Cat&rhisme,"  p.  93.        *  Ibid.,  p.  94.          *  Ibid.,  p.  96. 

4 "  Je  1'appelle  antisocial,  parcequ'il  engendre  1'inte'ret  de"sas- 
treux  de  ne  rapporter  qu'a  soi,  ce  qui  ne  doit  etre  rapport^  qu'a  la 
masse  ge'ne'rale  de  la  socie'te',  pour  6tre  distribu6  selon  les  besoins  de 
sesmembres;  ce  qui  rompt  tous  les  liens  et  ddtruit  1'essence  ou  les 
principes  constitutif s  de  contrat  social."  —  Ibid.,  pp.  89-90. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  97. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  287 

those  institutions  he  condemns,  is  antisocial,  mer- 
cenary, and  homicidal.  It  is  antisocial  because  the 
members  of  society  and  the  social  classes  are  placed  in 
such  sharp  contrast  to  each  other  that  true  social  life  is 
impossible.  It  is  homicidal  because  it  arms  the  child 
against  the  parent  and  the  brother  against  the  brother. 
It  is  mercenary  because  the  whole  social  process  is 
carried  on  for  a  pecuniary  purpose  and  none  serves  the 
other  unless  he  expects  a  large  recompense.2  Society, 
as  at  present  organized,  marked  by  these  mercenary 
motives,  is  antisocial  and  results  in  a  false  distribution 
of  social  benefits.  This  form  he  calls ' '  Socie"t£  Idonine ' ' ; 
that  is,  a  society  where  one  class  lives  by  devouring 
another  class.  For  society,  property,  the  family, 
religion,  and  law,  Boissel  has  about  equal  contempt. 
All  have  been  organized  to  lend  legitimacy  to  the 
usurpations  of  the  strongest. 

He  vigorously  attacks  the  reasoning  and  conclusions 
of  both  Rousseau  and  Montesquieu.  They  presented 
mere  palliatives  instead  of  attacking  and  removing 
social  wrongs.  To  Boissel  these  writers  were  but 
timid  conservatives,  constantly  harping  on  the  origin 
of  evil,  at  the  dawn  of  culture,  but  too  cautious  to  offer 
any  remedy.1  This  seems  an  interesting  bit  of  con- 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  88  et  seq. 

2  "  H  n'a  ouvert  les  yeux  que  sur  1'origine  du  mal  sans  s'occuper 
d'aucun  remede  curatif;    car  son  contrat  social  ne  pr&ente  que  les 
palliatif s  centre  le  vice  radical  des  soci&e's  humaines."  —  Ibid.,  p.  98. 


288      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

temporary  opinion  on  men  usually  in  this  day  called 
radicals. 

Boissel  was  equally  as  radical  in  his  attitude  toward 
the  family.  He  combined  the  two  institutions  — 
family  and  property  —  as  one  social  wrong.  In  itself 
marriage  is  not  an  evil.  It  is  because  it  helps  to  enlarge 
and  perpetuate  private  property  that  it  falls  under  the 
ban.  The  family,  paternity,  and  the  hereditary  princi- 
ple—  these  lead  to  the  perpetuity  in  property.1 

Boissel  seems  to  have  no  idea  of  the  socializing  force 
of  the  process  of  industry  and  the  division  of  labor.  All 
these  activities,  he  seems  to  think,  bring  only  warfare 
to  society.2  His  plan  for  social  reorganization  pro- 
vided for  a  return  to  the  conditions  of  primitive  life 
when  all  the  difficulties  of  this  complex  society  would 
vanish,  and  simple  but  helpful  association  would 
prevail.3 

8.  Boissel  held  many  ideas  in  common  with  Morelly. 
His  attitude  toward  existing  institutions  was,  however, 

1  "La  voila,  cette  re"ponse  de  1'homme  vraiment  social,  indicative 
du  veritable  ordre  moral  ainsi  que  des  principes  de  Pe"ducation  sociale, 
qui  auraient  dft  et  devraient  encore  aujourd'hui  servir  de  base  et 
de  fondement  k  la  civilisation  de  toutes  les  socie"tes  humaines,  d'oil 
r&ulteraient  les  plus  grands  biens  &  la  place  des  plus  grands  maux." 
—  "  Le  Catdchisme,  "  p.  99. 

2  "  C'est  que  par  le  partage  des  terres  les  hommes  n'ont  fait  que  se 
diviser  pour  vivre  chacun  de  son  travail ;  et  que  dans  cette  position, 
Us  se  sont  arme's  et  ddtruits  les  uns  par  les  autres."  —  Ibid.,  p.  100. 

8  "Revue  d'Economie  Politique,"  1891,  p.  365. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  289 

more  severe,  and  his  attacks  were  more  direct  and  bitter ; 
being  nearer  the  Revolution,  his  ideas  gathered  force 
from  the  surrounding  storm.  He  had  the  same  destruc- 
tive purpose  and  would  follow  it  with  the  same  relentless 
directness.  Like  Morelly,  he  called  attention  to  the 
need  of  constructive  effort.  He  also  drew  up  a  " Code" 
for  a  reorganized  France.  He  also  was  a  constitution- 
maker.  His  "Code  Civique"  is  patterned  after  the 
"Code"  of  Morelly,  though  it  is  less  extensive.1  In  it 
may  be  read  the  same  signs  of  hopefulness  in  the  ability 
of  the  people  to  overturn  the  existing  structure  and  to 
establish  one  better  suited  to  their  social  needs.  It  was 
published  when  constitution-making  was  becoming  a 
business  in  France,  and  contained  many  interesting 
political  and  social  suggestions. 

With  Boissel  as  with  the  other  early  writers  there  is 
an  absence  of  such  clear  discussion  of  the  productive 
process  as  socialists  have  done  later.  The  influences 
which  largely  shaped  his  thought  arose  from  agrarian 
France. 

9.  The  revolutionary  agitator  Babeuf  has  received 
somewhat  more  attention  than  the  other  writers  here 
treated.  The  chief  authority  on  his  life  and  teachings 
is  his  compatriot  Buonarroti,  who,  escaping  execution 
for  banishment  in  1796  when  Babeuf  was  beheaded, 

1  "Code  Civique  de  la  France,"  1790.    Copies  of  this  are  rare,  one 
being  in  the  National  Library,  Paris. 
u 


2QO     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

promised  him  he  would  write  his  biography.  Accor- 
dingly this  rather  remarkable  life  of  Babeuf  was  edited 
by  Buonarroti  in  1828.  The  most  important  docu- 
ments left  by  Babeuf  resulted  from  his  work  as  a 
journalist.  After  the  organization  of  the  "Socie'te'  du 

^ 

Pantheon,"  sometimes  known  as  "  Socie'te' desEgaux  "  an 
organ  of  communication  was  decreed  necessary.  This 
means  Babeuf  supplied  in  the  Tribune  du  Peuple. 
In  this  journal  he  set  forth  his  most  radical  views  on 
society  and  the  means  for  its  reorganization.  In  it  he 
entered  his  protest  against  existing  social  institutions. 
The  ideas  advanced  in  the  Tribune  were,  on  the 
whole,  sanctioned  by  the  "Socie'te'"  and  may  be  taken 
as  the  revolutionary  programme  of  Babeuf  and  that 
radical  group,  who,  as  one  of  their  number  expressed 
it,  believed  that  a  mere  change  in  the  form  of  govern- 
ment was  not  sufficient;  but  that  the  social  conditions 
must  be  changed  and  founded  upon  justice  and  virtue. 
They  were  in  the  midst  of  the  revolutionary  conflict, 
aiming  to  direct  the  French  people  toward  perfect 
equality.1 

According  to  Babeuf  and  his  associates,  social 
organization  is  based  upon  a  mutual  compact.  Each 
member  entering  this  compact  was  equal  with  every 
other.  In  this  primitive  society  there  was  absolute 
equality  of  wealth  and  of  individual  opportunity.  All 

1  Buonarroti,  op.  cit.,  p.  33. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS  29 1 

material  goods  were  in  this  period  divided  equally 
among  all  members  of  the  group.1  In  this  theory 
society  exists  to  prevent  inequalities;  under  existing 
conditions  it  rests  upon  inequalities.2 

To  Babeuf  the  ideal  of  social  organization  demanded 
community  of  goods  and  of  station.3  Into  the  hands  of 
the  public  power  should  be  committed  the  task  of 
maintaining  this  condition  of  equality ;  this,  they  advised, 
should  be  done  in  France  through  the  legislature.4 
The  club  agreed  that  any  condition  was  intolerable 
where  this  equality  did  not  exist  and  where  industry  was 
not  open  to  all.5  The  Socie'te'  du  Pantheon,  which  had 
accepted  the  radical  views  of  Babeuf,  considered  private 
property  the  enemy  of  justice  and  order  in  France,  and 
hoped  to  see  disorder,  misrule,  and  idleness  destroyed 
when  communism  became  dominant.' 

1  Brissot  de  Warville,  "Life  of  Brissot,"  p.  59. 

1  Buonarroti,  op.  cit.,  pp.  86-87.  *  Ibid.,  p.  87. 

4 "  D&ruire  cette  inegalite  est  done  la  tache  d'un  tegislateur 
vertueux;  voilk  le  principe  qui  re"sulte  de  la  meditation  du  comite"; 
comment  parvenir?"  —  Ibid.,  p.  85. 

1 "  Et  1'amener  a  proclamer  que  tous  les  hommes  ont  un  droit  e*gal 
aux  productions  de  la  terre  et  de  Pindustrie." — Ibid.,  p.  85.  Cf.  Jaures, 
"Histoire  Socialiste,"  Vol.  I,  p.  4. 

9  "  Quant  a  la  cause  de  ces  desordres,  on  la  trouvait  dans  Pine"galit£ 
des  fortunes  et  des  conditions  et  en  derniere  analyse  dans  la  pro- 
prie"t£  individuelle,  par  laquelle  les  plus  adroits  et  les  plus  heureux 
de'pouillerent  et  de"pouillent  sans  cesse  la  multitude  qui  astreinte  a 
des  travaux  longs  et  pe"nibles,  mal  nourrie,  mal  ve"tue,  et  mal  loge"e, 
privet  des  jouissances  qu'elle  voit  se  multiplier  pour  quelques  uns. 


SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

In  the  Tribune  Babeuf  advocated  that  all  labor 
must  be  regulated  by  law.  None  was  to  be  exempt,  and 
none  should  be  overburdened.  The  feeble  were  not  to 
be  idle,  but  were  to  be  relieved  from  heavy  labor,  and 
stronger  members  were  to  endure  the  greater  hard- 
ships.1 Such  was  the  theory  advocated  by  this  organ 
of  the  most  radical  group  of  the  revolutionary  period. 
Most  of  it,  no  doubt,  emanated  from  Babeuf ;  at  least  he 
would  have  accepted  it  all. 

The  theories  of  Babeuf  are  found  principally  in 
certain  fragments  discovered  in  his  room  at  the  time  of 
his  execution.2  The  chief  classes  which  he  distinguishes 
are  the  rich  and  the  poor ;  it  is  this  difference  in  wealth 
that  makes  for  social  unrest.  These  social  distinc- 
tions, he  says,  are  pernicious  and  unnatural.3  There 
are,  he  says,  but  two  grounds  for  social  distinction  — 
age  and  sex.  All  having  the  same  needs  and  the  same 
powers,  all  should  enjoy  the  same  opportunities  for 
culture  and  the  same  material  support.  There  is  only 

et  min£e  par  la  misere,  par  Pignorance,  par  1'envie,  et  par  le  de"sespoir 
dans  ses  forces  physiques  et  morales,  ne  voit  dans  la  socie'te'  qu'un 
ennui."  —  Buonarroti,  op.  cit.,  pp.  84-85. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  210-211. 

J  The  inscriptions  of  these  are :  "  Haute  cour  de  justice ;  Copie  des 
pieces,  saisies  dans  le  local  que  Babeuf  occupait  lors  de  son  arresta- 
tion  a  Paris,  Frumaire,  an  V." 

s  "  Qu'il  cesse  enfin  ce  grand  scandale  que  nos  neveux  ne  voudront 
pas  croire  ?  disparaissez  enfin  reVoltantes  distinctions  de  riches  et 
de  pauvres ;  de  grands  et  de  petits,  de  mattres  et  de  valets,  de  gou- 
vernants  et  de  gouverne*s."  —  Ibid.,  Vol.  I,  piece  52,  p.  161. 


THE   REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  293 

one  sun,  and  it  shines  alike  on  all ;  why,  then,  should  not 
all  have  the  same  means  of  life  and  the  same  pleasures  ?  * 

Babeuf  taught  that  in  a  primitive  state  of  society 
men  were  all  equal.  Inequality  arose  with  early 
civilization,  and  then  this  inequality  was  fixed  and 
established  in  the  civil  law.  To-day  equality  in  theory 
is  very  well ;  but  so  far,  in  practice,  it  is  chimerical.  All 
should  be  equal  before  the  law,  all  being  born  equal; 
unless  they  have  signed  away  their  liberty,  they  should 
be  free  and  equal.2 

On  the  validity  of  property  Babeuf  made  a  few  very 
definite  statements.  To  him  the  "Agrarian  Law"  was 
but  a  compromise  and  did  not  solve  the  problem.  It 
was  necessary  to  take  a  more  radical  course ;  the  only 
way  to  solve  the  social  question  permanently  was  to 
entirely  abandon  private  property.  All  goods  should 
be  reduced  to  communal  control.3  Babeuf  considered 

1  "Us  se  contentent  d'un  seul  soleil  et  d'un  meme  air  pour  tous; 
pourquoi  la  meme  portion  et  la  meme  qualite  d'aliments  ne  suffiraient- 
elles  pas  a  chacun  d'eux?"  —  Ibid.,  piece  52. 

1 "  Nous  sommes  tous  egaux,  n'est-ce  pas  ?  ce  principe  demeure  incon- 
teste",  parcequ'a  moins  d'etre  atteint  de  folie  on  ne  saurait  dire  se'rieuse- 
ment  qu'il  fait  nuit  quand  il  fait  jour."  — Ibid.,  piece  52,  p.  160. 

3  "  Nous  tendons  a  quelque  chose  de  plus  sublime  et  de  plus 
Equitable,  le  bien  commun  ou  la  communante  des  biens."  —  Ibid., 
p.  161. 

"Le  droit  de  proprie'te'  est  celui  qui  appartient  a  tout  citoyen  de 
jouir  et  de  disposer  a  son  gre*  de  ses  biens,  de  ses  revenus,  du  fruit 
de  son  travail  et  de  sonindustrie." — Article  16,  Declaration  of  Rights, 
1793.  Article  18  forbade  property  in  persons. 


294     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

the  ownership  of  land  particularly  unfortunate.1  Prop- 
erty in  goods  might  be  tolerated ;  but  private  ownership 
in  land,  he  held,  was  both  unnatural  and  injudicious. 
Through  the  existence  of  private  property  there  is 
created  a  leisure  class,  and  the  great  majority  are  thus 
compelled  to  labor  for  the  pleasure  of  the  extreme 
minority. 

In  his  attack  on  society  Babeuf  shows  clearly  that  he 
has  the  concrete  case  of  France  in  view.  The  power  of 
the  great  lords  and  of  the  propertied  class  he  condemns 
as  oppressive  and  intolerable.  Too  long  the  system  of 
large  holders  had  oppressed  the  great  body  of  non- 
property  holders.2 

Of  the  same  nature  was  the  demand  of  the  Insurrec- 
tionary Committee.  It  held  in  the  first  place  that 
property  rights  were  not  based  upon  the  law  of  nature, 
but  were  only  a  creation  of  the  civil  law.  This  being 
the  case,  the  people  could  at  any  time  change,  revise, 
or  abolish  the  rights  of  private  property.  It  advised 
that  ownership  of  goods  be  lodged  in  society,  and  that 
this  should  inhere  inalienably  in  the  whole  people; 

1  "Plus  de  proprie'te'  individuelle  des  terres,  la  terre  n'est  a  per- 
sonne.     Nous   re"clamons,    nous   voulons   la   jouissance   communale 
des  fruits  de  la  terre.     Les  fruits  sont  a  tout  le  monde."  —  Babeuf, 
"Manifesto,"  p.  152. 

2  "Assez  et  trop  longtemps  moins  d'un  million  d'individus  dispose 
de  ce  qui  appartient  a  plus  de  vingt  millions  de  leurs  semblables,  de 
leuis  e*gaux."  —  Ibid.,  p.  153. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS  295 

with  them  alone  should  reside  the  power  to  regulate 
employment  and  distribute  the  product  of  public  in- 
dustry.1 

As  was  the  case  with  most  of  these  writers,  especially 
during  the  Revolution,  Babeuf  had  complete  faith  in  the 
possibility  of  his  radical  scheme.  Before  his  execution 
he  had  seen  the  chief  features  of  the  plans  of  the  "  Moun- 
tain" carried  into  effect.  The  political  aspects  of  the 
Revolution  had  clearly  shown  the  possibility  of  very 
radical  social  changes.  He  died  before  the  reaction 
toward  monarchy  under  the  Directory  had  set  in,  or 
the  reversion  to  absolutism  under  the  imperial  regime  of 
Napoleon  had  dimmed  the  red  glory  of  the  tragic  revo- 
lutionary days.  He  carried  to  his  grave  the  faith  that 
those  great  social  changes  for  which  he  had  stood 
might  yet  be  fulfilled.2 

Babeuf  held  that  society  must  always  be  troubled  by 
dissensions  so  long  as  such  disproportions  exist  between 
the  resources  of  the  different  social  classes.  His 
treatment  of  the  Revolution  may  be  called  a  social- 
economic  discussion.  Many  writers  were  occupied 

1  Buonarroti,  op.  cit.,  p.  207. 

3  "  La  Revolution,  nous  a  donne"  preuves  sur  preuves  que  le  peuple 
francais,  peut  etre  un  grand  et  vieux  peuple,  n'est-ce  pas?  Pour  cela 
incapable  d'adopter  les  plus  grands  changements  dans  ses  institutions, 
de  consentir  aux  plus  grands  sacrifices  pour  les  ame'liorer.  N'a-t-il 
pastout  chang6  depuis  1789  excepte*  cette  seule  institution  de  la  pro- 
"  —  "Manifesto,"  Vol.  i,  piece  5. 


296      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

chiefly  with  the  fiscal  and  political  aspects  of  the  age; 
they  were  more  interested  in  the  government  and  in  its 
structure,  disregarding  the  social  constitution.1  Babeuf 
viewed  the  government  merely  as  a  means  to  the  support 
and  happiness  of  all  the  members  of  society.  "  Je  vais 
plus  loin  que,  soit  que  Pen  combatte  ou  non,  le  sol  d'un 
e"tat  doit  assurer  1'existence  a  tous  les  membres  de  cet 
e"tat."  Babeuf  sought  to  reestablish  the  equilibrium 
between  the  classes  as  regards  wealth.  This  he  be- 
lieved the  only  means  whereby  society  might  become 
safe  and  stable.  The  remedy  for  France  was  to  be 
sought  in  the  reform  of  the  social  rather  than  in  that 
of  the  civil  or  political  constitution.2 

Babeuf  was  much  of  a  dreamer.  He  was  far  less 
practical  than  those  revolutionary  spirits  to  whom 
freedom  from  political  oppression  meant  so  much  and 
who  hoped  for  readjustment  through  reforms  in  the 
government.  He  was  therefore  out  of  sympathy  with 
those  who  had  liberty  as  their  ideal.  To  Babeuf  these 
attempts  at  social  amelioration  through  political  reform 
were  mere  time-serving ;  he  abandoned  these  for  a  more 
far-reaching  policy  where  complete  equality  as  a  basis  of 
social  reform  was  accepted.  Babeuf  idealized  equality, 
forgetting,  as  did  so  many  writers  of  his  stamp,  the  idea 

1  Faure,  "Le  Socialisme  pendant  la  Revolution  francaise,"  p.  55. 
'  Ibid.,  p.  51.     Cf.  Speeches  of  Desmoulins  before  the  Convention, 
"Tracts." 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  297 

of  liberty  which  had  been  the  watchword  of  the  Revo- 
lution. This  doctrine  of  social  equality  was  the  direct 
contribution  of  these  radicals  to  the  Revolution.  The 
idea  of  liberty  belonged  to  the  radical  political  parties. 
It  was  the  latter  and  not  the  former  that  produced  the 
French  Revolution.  In  this  sense  the  Revolution  was 
not  socialistic.1 

10.  Among  those  who,  like  Babeuf,  considered  social 
equality  an  essential  to  liberty  and  justice  in  France, 
was  the  radical  theorist  and  doctrinaire,  Saint- Just.  He 
pointed  out,  though  less  explicitly,  that  the  hopes  for 
practical  liberty  and  social  justice  without  an  economic 
reconstruction  were  groundless.  He  thought  that  if  the 
Revolution  was  to  work  out  the  welfare  of  the  lower- 
classes,  radical  social  and  industrial  changes  must  be 
realized. 

The  literature  from  the  pen  of  Saint- Just  is  not 
extensive,  and  little  of  that  is  available.  The  most 

1  "  All  these  rogues,  swept  by  each  other  from  the  Jacobins,  have 
at  last  made  room  for  Danton,  Robespierre,  and  Lindet,  for  those 
general  deputies  of  every  department,  mountaineers  of  the  Convention ; 
the  bulwarks  of  the  Republic  whose  thoughts  have  never  wandered  a 
moment  from  their  object;  the  political  and  individual  liberty  of 
every  citizen,  a  constitution  worthy  of  Solon  or  Lycurgus,  one  in- 
divisible Republic;  the  splendor  and  prosperity  of  France,  not  an 
impracticable  equality  of  property,  but  an  equality  of  rights  and 
happiness."  —  Speech  of  Camille  Desmoulins,  "Tracts."  Cf.  Speech 
of  Mallet  du  Pan,  Ibid.,  1793. 


298      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

valuable  source  for  his  ideas  is  "Fragments  sur  les 
Institutions  Rdpublicaines."  * 

The  key  to  the  teaching  of  Saint- Just  is  his  treatment 
of  what  he  considered  the  social  unit  under  the  present 
regime  —  the  family.  As  a  basis  of  the  union  of  the 
sexes  he  placed  conjugal  love,  and  taught  that  a  form 
of  marriage  exists  wherever  there  is  discovered  spiritual 
affinity.  In  this  respect  he  is  at  one  with  such  English 
radicals  as  Godwin,  Shelley,  Byron,  and  the  like.  His 
theory  meant  the  dissolution  of  family  life  as  it  exists  in 
a  regime  where  marriage  is  held  sacred  and  property 
rights  are  inviolable.  His  theory  of  marriage  resem- 
bles the  common  law  marriage.2  His  teachings  were, 
however,  of  a  chivalrous  kind.3  As  in  the  Spartan 
state  barrenness  was  a  cause  for  separation,  so  Saint- 
Just  would  allow  divorce  if  there  were  no  offspring  for 
seven  years.  Children  were  after  a  certain  age  to  be- 
come wards  of  the  state.4  From  the  fifth  to  the  tenth 
year  the  state  was  to  train  the  children  that  they  might 
become  proper  citizens. 

1  It  bears  the  inscription,  "  Ouvrage  posthume  de  Saint -Just  pre*- 
c€d€  d'une  notice  par  Nodier,  Paris,  1831." 

I"L'homme  et  la  femme  qui  s'aiment  sont  e*poux,  s'ils  n'ont 
point  d'enfants  ils  peuvent  tenir  leur  engagement  secret;  mais  si 
l'e*pouse  devient  grosse  ils  sont  tenus  de  declarer  qu'ils  sont  e*poux  au 
magistral."  —  "  Fragment,"  p.  60. 

1 "  Celui  qui  frappe  une  femme  est  banni.  Les  femmes  ne  peuvent 
Ctre  censuses." —  Ibid.,  p.  61. 

•  "L'enfant  du  citoyen  appartient  &  la  patrie."  —  Ibid. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS  299 

ii.  The  discussion  of  the  family  and  its  proposed 
reorganization  naturally  led  Saint- Just  to  a  brief 
consideration  of  economic  questions.  With  an  unstable 
form  of  family  came  the  problem  of  the  control  of 
property.  If  the  right  of  inheritance  was  not  to  be 
maintained,  Saint- Just  saw  that  with  no  succession  in 
family  lines  either  the  state  must  be  made  the  residuary 
claimant  or  else  anarchy  as  to  the  control  of  property 
must  ensue.  He  had,  therefore,  a  rather  unique  plan 
whereby  property  would  gradually  revert  to  the  state. 
In  case  husband  and  wife  separated,  an  occurrence  he 
seemed  to  expect,  one-half  the  property  escheated  to 
society,  the  other  half  was  to  be  divided  between  the 
separated  parties.1  Inheritance  was  to  be  tolerated  in 
direct  line  alone.  He  denied  emphatically  the  right  of 
succession  in  collateral  lines.2  Saint- Just  advocated 
the  equal  division  of  property  among  all  the  children,  a 
proposition  that  became  law  in  France  in  1793,  and 
which  holds  good  to-day. 

Saint- Just  condemned  idleness  as  one  of  the  evils  in 

1  "  S'ils  se  se"parent,  la  moitie*  de  la  communaute*  leur  appartient ; 
ils  la  partagent  e*galement   entre    eux;    1'autre    moitie"    appartient 
aux  enfants;  s'il  n'y  a  point  d'enfants  elle  appartient  au  domaine 
public."  —  Ibid.,  p.  61. 

2  "L'he're'dite'  est  exclusive  entre  les  parents  directs.    Les  parents 
directs  sont  les  alne"s,  le  pere  et  la  mere,  les  enfants,  le  frere  et  la 
soeur.     Les  parents  indirects  ne    se  succedent  point.     La  Re"pu- 
blique  succede  a  ceux  qui  meurent  sans  parents  directs."  —  Ibid., 
p.  63. 


3OO     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

society  and  made  no  provision  for  a  leisure  class  in  his 
republic.  He  showed  a  partiality  to  agriculture  and 
displayed  1  the  influence  of  an  agricultural  environment 
and  of  physiocracy.  One  kind  of  labor  uniformly 
required  of  all  was  farm  labor. 

Saint- Just  partook  of  the  prevalent  spirit  of  optimism, 
so  characteristic  of  his  country  and  of  his  age.  In  the 
future  of  society,  if  regulated  according  to  his  ideal,  he 
had  the  fullest  confidence.  He  thoroughly  believed 
that  society  might  develop  objectively  along  lines  of 
his  abstract  theories.2 

12.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  a  large  part  of  the 
radical  theories  of  Mably  were  provoked  by  the  bitter 
discussion  which  he  had  with  the  great  leader  of  the 
physiocratic  school,  Mercier  de  la  Riviere,  the  most 
philosophic  writer  of  that  school.3  Mably  rather 
turned  aside  to  take  up  this  opposition  to  Mercier  and 
answered  him  in  a  work  of  considerable  strength.  His 

1  "Tout  proprie'taire  qui  n'exerce  point  de  metier,  qui  n'est  point 
magistral,  qui  a  plus  de  vingt-cinq  ans  est  tenu  de  cultiver  la  terre 
jusqu'a  cinquante  ans."  —  "  Fragment,"  p.  70. 

2  Kritschewsky,  "  J.  J.  Rousseau  und  Saint -Just;    ein  Beitrag  zur 
Entwicklungsgeschichte    der    socialpolitischen    Ideen    der    Monta- 
gnards,"  1895,  p.  41. 

3"L'ordre  naturel  et  essentiel  des  socie'te's,"  1767.  Cf.  Higgs 
"The  Physiocrats,"  six  lectures  on  the  French  economists  of  the 
eighteenth  century;  "Revue  Sociale  Catholique,"  pp.  256  et  seq.; 
Legrand,  R.,  "Richard  Cantillon,  un  Mercantiliste  Pre"curseur  des 
Physiocrates";  Vogel,  "Over  de  Leer  der  Physiokraten,"  1859. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS  301 

main  work  had  been  devoted  to  the  larger  field  of  history 
and  jurisprudence,  in  which  sphere  he  did  rather  an 
extensive  service.  The  general  ability  of  the  man, 
however,  did  much  to  give  popularity  to  his  views,  and  he 
received  considerable  attention  in  his  immediate  age.1 

Mably,  then,  like  many  of  his  day  and  school,  was 
inclined  at  first  to  the  ancient  mode  of  thought  and  was  a 
very  devoted  student  of  history.2  While  in  his  writings 
there  can  be  traced  his  opposition  to  the  institutions  of 
his  age,  it  was  after  the  dogmatic  work  of  Mercier 
defending  the  system  of  physiocracy  and  in  particular 
the  institution  of  private  property  that  Mably  took  up 
a  most  radical  propaganda.3 

The  leading  features  of  interest  in  the  career  of 

1  His  most  important  works  are :   "  Doutes  proposes  aux  Philoso- 
phes  economiques,  sur  1'Ordre  naturel  et  essentiel  des  Socie"t6s  poli- 
tiques,"  1768;    "De  la  Legislation  ou  Principes  des  Lois";    "Ob- 
servations sur  PHistoire  de  France,"  3  vols. ;  "Principes  des  Nego- 
tiations pour  servir  d'Introduction  au  Droit  Public  de  PEurope,"  etc. 

2  On  Mably  see  Be*renger,  "  Esprit  de  Mably  et  de  Condillac  rela- 
tivement  a  la  morale  et  a   la  politique,"  1789;    Le  C.  Lavacher, 
"De  1'homme  en  socie"te;   complement  a  la  legislation  de  Mably," 
2  vols.,  1804. 

3  Mably  was  born  in  Grenoble  in  1709.     He  was  determined  for 
the  church  orders  and  at  an  early  age  began  the  study  of  theology. 
Like  others  of  his  age,  as  Voltaire,  Meslier,  and  the  like,  he  became 
dissatisfied  with  clerical  teachings  and  practice,  and  abandoned  the 
church  to  take  part  in   the  more   stirring  thought  and  activity  of 
society  and  the  state.     In  his  history  of  France  he  showed  marked 
ability  as  a  historian,  and  in  his  treatise  on  the  public  law  of  Europe  is 
seen  another  side  of  this  versatile  character.    He  died  in  1 785. 


302      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

Mably  were  his  extreme  boldness,  his  great  logical 
power,  and  the  ability  he  displayed  in  his  struggle  with 
the  physiocratic  school, — a  fact  which  alone  would  have 
brought  any  man  to  prominence.  Mably  was  a  con- 
temporary of  Morelly,  and  while  he  lacked  in  construc- 
tive genius,  surpassed  that  writer  in  destructive  criti- 
cism. The  occasion  of  Mably's  attack  on  society  in 
general  and  on  property  in  particular  was  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  physiocratic  defence  of  property  and  of 
the  existing  order  in  "L'Ordre  Naturel  et  Essentiel  de 
Societ^"  from  the  pen  of  the  ablest  physiocrat,  Mercier 
de  la  Riviere.  To  this  Mably  made  reply  in  his 
"Doutes  proposes  aux  Philosophes  e'conomiques  sur 
1'Ordre  naturel  et  essentiel  des  Socie'te's  politiques." 
This  appeared  in  1768,  after  the  writings  of  Rousseau 
and  Morelly.  It  was  in  response  to  these  that  Mercier 
had  written  his  defence  of  the  existing  regime. 

Equally  as  suggestive  of  the  new  and  destructive  of 
the  old  order  were  the  ideas  advanced  by  Mably. 
Mably  was  interested,  as  were  Morelly  and  Rousseau, 
to  find  the  causes  of  social  evil  and  the  means  for  their 
removal.  With  them  he  held  the  source  of  social  ills 
to  be  private  property.  Inequality  and  property  he 
associated  as  cause  and  effect.  Both  equality  and 
communal  right  to  material  goods  he  called  natural 
rights.  Both  of  these  man  lost  when  he  abandoned 
natural  society.  Both  inequality  and  its  corollary, 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS  303 

private  property,  are  the  result  of  convention;  they 
are  neither  the  natural  nor  essential  basis  of  society,  as 
Mercier  had  claimed;  neither  are  they  to  be  tolerated 
on  grounds  of  expediency,  as  had  been  taught  by 
Rousseau. 

Like  Morelly,  Mably  was  specific  and  accurate  in  his 
analysis.  He  attempted  to  discover  and  point  out  the 
real  relation  between  property  and  inequality.  This 
lies  chiefly  in  the  advantages  the  possession  of  wealth 
gives  the  holder;  advantages  in  education  and  in 
culture  and  in  those  things  which  lend  distinction  and 
power.  Here  originate  social  classes,  and  here  the 
pernicious  influences  of  inequality  begin. 

While  Mably  thus  theoretically  condemned  property 
and  the  evils  which  flow  from  it,  in  practice  he  was 
moderate  like  Rousseau.  At  the  time  he  wrote,  he 
believed  these  institutions  still  necessary  to  maintain 
the  social  order ;  at  the  same  time  he  held  that  they  were 
not  necessarily  the  final  order.  The  only  actual  change 
he  advised  was  a  limitation  upon  the  amount  of  land 
any  one  could  hold.1  A.  Franck  points  out  the  relation 
of  Mably  to  Morelly  in  these  concise  words :  "Mably 
has  the  glory  of  having  given  to  communism  its  most 
concise  and  logical  form;  but  two  things  remained  to 
be  done :  to  give  to  the  theory  the  imperative  character 
of  law,  or  to  embody  it  in  the  form  of  a  code  and  to  put 

1  "Doutes  proposes,"  etc.,  p.  162. 


304      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

it  into  action.  The  first  was  done  by  Morelly,  the 
second  by  Babeuf."  * 

13.  The  theories  set  forth  by  Linguet  are  suggestive 
of  the  same  radical  social  thought,  although  his  writings 
were  not  generally  of  a  revolutionary  color.  He  was 
a  poet,  dramatist,  historian,  journalist,  and  a  thorough 
student  of  the  law.2  Lichtenberger  considers  Linguet 
as  a  very  direct  and  important  forerunner  of  modern 
socialism.  Much  of  his  thought  is  not,  however,  con- 
nected very  closely  with  the  theories  here  discussed. 
The  most  radical  parts  deal  with  the  problem  of  prop- 
erty. Less  revolutionary  than  Morelly  or  Mably,  his 
method  of  attack  was  similar. 

Property  lies  at  the  basis  of  extravagance  and  luxury 
on  one  hand  and  of  poverty  and  squalor  on  the  other. 
He  says  it  is  the  wealth  arising  through  the  accumulation 
of  private  property  that  creates  an  idle  rich  class,  who 
live  from  the  labor  of  the  less  fortunate  class.8  Prop- 

1  Franck,  "  Communisme  juge"  par  Phistoire,"  Paris,  1849,  P-  59- 
1  Linguet  was  born  at  Rheims  in  1 736.  He  held  a  place  of  note 
as  a  writer  and  legal  authority  during  the  closing  half  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century.  His  leading  work  was  "Theories  des  lois  civiles; 
ou  Principes  Fondamentaux  de  la  Socie'te',"  London,  1767.  Cf.  Hugo 
und  Stegmann,  "Handbuchdes  Socialismus,"  pp.  472  et  seq.;  Cruppi, 
"Un  Avocat  journaliste  au  i8me  Siecle,  Linguet,"  1895;  Monselet, 
"Les  Oublies  et  les  De'daigne's,"  Alencon,  1857,  pp.  1-47;  Lichten- 
berger, "Le  Socialisme  Utopique,"  pp.  75-131. 

1  "  L'accroissement  de  ces  biens  lui  fait  imaginer  les  distinctions. 
II  1'amene  a  d&irer  le  superflu  et  son  opulence  lui  donne  le  moyen 
de  le  payer."  —  "Theories  des  lois  civiles,"  Paris,  1767,  Ch.  III. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  305 

erty  fosters  luxury,  creates  class-distinctions,  and,  mak- 
ing possible  a  leisure  class,  compels  labor  to  bear 
their  burdens.1  He  does  not,  however,  see  this  as  the 
worst  evil.  Property  is  injurious  to  the  entire  society. 
Through  luxury  and  extravagance  the  population  is 
lessened  and  society  is  weakened.  He  attacks  private 
property  from  the  social  view  point  and  sees  the  general 
interests  at  war  with  the  interests  of  the  dominant 
social  classes.2  Property  he  considers  the  basis  of 
society  as  at  present  organized.  To  upset  property 
would  mean  to  revolutionize  society.  Property,  like 
government,  is  a  necessary  evil.  Law  he  defines  as 
the  protector  of  those  who  have  against  those  who 
have  not.3  Linguet  saw  much  as  did  Harrington  a 
vital  union  between  property  and  a  stable  society. 
He  justifies  private  property  because  it  saves  society 
from  that  anarchy  from  which  it  has  emerged.4 

14.  The  writer  of  this  period  who  saw  most  clearly 
the  economic  causes  which  operate  in  history  in  general 
and  which  caused  the  French  Revolution  in  particular, 
was  Barnave.5  As  a  necessary  outgrowth  of  this  view 

1  Ibid.,  Ch.  VI.  2  Ibid.,  Ch.  VIII. 

3  "  Elles  tendent  a  mettre  1'homme  qui  possede  du  superflu  a 
couvert  des  attaques  de  celui  qui  n'a  pas  le  ne"cessaire."     Ibid.,  p.  196. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  198. 

1  As  is  the  case  with  other  authors  here  noted,  Barnave  has  been 
very  much  neglected.  He  was  born  at  Grenoble  in  1761  and  suf- 
fered death  by  the  guillotine  in  1793.  He  was  a  lawyer  by  profession. 
Barnave  was  an  ardent  follower  of  Montesquieu  and  received  much 


306      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

of  history  he  also  saw  the  rise  of  the  classes  and  dis- 
cussed the  part  which  economic  changes  have  played 
in  history.  In  this  respect  he  bears  very  close  resem- 
blance to  Marx.  To  M.  Jaures  l  the  credit  is  largely 
due  of  discovering  Barnave  and  placing  him  in  his 
proper  position  regarding  the  theory  of  his  own  day 
and  of  later  times.2 

Barnave  was  more  than  a  mere  political  agitator 
or  narrow-minded  revolutionist.  His  activities  and  in- 
terests had  marked  him  as  a  man  with  large  powers  and 
great  possibilities  surpassed  by  Mirabeau  alone  among 
the  revolutionary  leaders.  His  knowledge  of  the 
colonial  situation,  of  the  larger  aspects  of  French  ad- 
ministration, and  of  the  operations  in  the  local  and 
national  legislative  bodies  especially  fitted  him  to  take 
the  economist's  view  of  the  great  Revolution.3  Jaures 

of  his  inspiration  from  him.  He  was  a  member  of  the  estates-general 
of  1789  and  president  of  the  Assembly  in  1790.  At  first  a  radical 
democrat,  the  drift  of  the  Revolution  of  1791  convinced  him  of  the 
need  of  a  more  conservative  course  into  which  he  attempted  to  lead 
the  Assembly.  He  pleaded  the  inviolability  of  the  king's  person  in  the 
Convention  of  1792. 

1  Jaures,  "Histoire  Socialiste,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  97  et  seq. 

2  The  writings  of  Barnave  were  collected  and  published  in  1843  by 
BeVenger  in  four  volumes.     His  most   important  contribution  for 
purposes  of  this  essay  was  "Introduction  a  la  Revolution  francaise." 
Quite  a  number  of  pamphlets  have  been  left  by  Barnave  on  practical 
subjects  concerning  finance,  colonies,  and  administration. 

s  See  de  Lome"nie,  "Esquisses  Historiques  et  Litte'raires"; 
Barnave,  "Rapport  fait  a  P Assembled,  sur  les  Colonies,"  1791; 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS  307 

says  of  Barnave,  that  he  most  clearly  stated  the  princi- 
ples on  which  the  Revolution  advanced,  in  which  he 
discerned  those  economic  causes  which  were  later  so 
much  emphasized  by  Marx.  He  also  claims  that 
Marx  has  ignored  in  him  a  most  important  precursor.1 
During  the  Revolution  he  was  on  the  side  of  the  third 
estate,  voted  with  them,  spoke  for  them,  and  when  con- 
ferences were  held,  he  was  named  as  the  conferee.  His 
attitude  was  rather  that  of  the  practical  statesman  and 
reformer  than  of  the  radical  doctrinaire.2  Of  all  the 
revolutionary  group,  with  perhaps  the  exception  of 
Mirabeau,  Barnave  was  the  most  conservative,  cautious, 
and  useful.  Although  at  first  on  the  side  of  the  radicals, 
he  advised  measures  of  practical  reform  which  tended 
to  allay  the  bitterness  of  the  classes  and  to  moderate 
the  fury  of  the  revolutionary  conflict. 

"  Proces- Verbal  de  1' Assemble  Nationale;  15  Juillet,"  1791; 
Be'renger,  "  Notice  historique  sur  Barnave  "  in  ^CEuvres  de  Barnave," 
1843.  Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the  period 
of  Marx  saw  a  revival  of  interest  in  the  prerevolutionary  writings. 
This  edition  of  Barnave's  works,  appearing  in  1843,  is  another  illus- 
tration of  this.  Buonarroti's  life  of  Babeuf  came  earlier,  1828. 

1"Histoire  Socialiste,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  97-98.  Be'renger,  op.  cit., 
Introduction. 

2  He  opposed  the  absolute  veto  of  the  king ;  advocated  the  division 
of  France  into  departments  and  the  enlargement  of  the  local  powers ; 
he  was  in  favor  of  the  introduction  of  the  trial  by  jury  for  both  criminal 
and  civil  cases.  Over  the  powers  of  the  king  as  to  war  and  peace 
occurred  the  debate  between  Mirabeau  and  Barnave  which  alone 
would  have  made  either  man  famous. 


308      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

As  has  been  already  pointed  out,  certain  very  funda- 
mental differences  in  view  mark  the  earlier  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  modern  socialism.  Among  these 
none  is  more  important  than  the  recognition  of  the 
evolutionary  nature  of  society  and  the  necessary  belief 
that  social  reforms,  if  carried  through,  must  move 
slowly.  To  this  proposition  Barnave  clearly  committed 
himself.  This  fact  appears  both  in  his  activities  in  the 
national  assembly  and  in  his  writings  touching  this 
subject.1 

Of  the  influences  of  the  external  environment  and 
of  the  dominant  cultural  forces  on  the  social  and 
political  forms,  Barnave  was  completely  convinced. 
Power  in  government  and  social  prestige  depend,  he 
says,  upon  a  certain  conjunction  of  outward  circum- 
stances, and  are  largely  independent  of  the  will  of  the 
different  individuals.  Society  develops  according  to 
certain  natural  laws,  and  beyond  these  the  controlling 
power  of  the  social  will  cannot  go.2 

According  to  Barnave  the  chief  external  factor  deter- 
mining social  and  political  development  is  the  economic 
condition.  His  clear  recognition  of  this  principle  in 

1 "  Ainsi  les  gouvernements  changent  de  forme  quelquefois  par 
une  progression  douce  et  insensible,  et  quelquefois  par  de  violentes 
commotions."  — "  Introduction  k  la  Revolution  francaise,"  p.  3. 

1  "  C'est  la  nature  des  choses,  la  periode  sociale  ou  le  peuple  est 
arrive",  la  terre  qu'il  habite,  ses  richesses,  ses  besoms,  ses  habitudes, 
ses  mceurs,  qui  distribuent  le  pouvoir."  —  Ibid.,  p.  3. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY   RADICALS  309 

general  makes  his  connection  with  Marx  apparent; 
while  his  attitude  toward  property  and  its  relation  to 
human  progress  shows  his  sympathy  with  the  authors 
earlier  discussed. 

The  theory  of  Barnave  as  to  social  origins  is  almost 
identical  with  that  of  Morelly  and  Rousseau.  Early 
society  is  marked  by  communism  as  to  property  and 
equality  and  liberty  as  to  person.  At  first  there  may  be 
some  ownership  of  implements,  but  the  land  is  held 
entirely  in  common.1 

With  Morelly,  Barnave  states  that  the  chief  dynamic 
social  force  is  the  increase  of  population.  As  this 
multiplies,  new  needs  present  themselves,  the  individual 
begins  to  feel  his  insufficiency,  and  necessity  forces  or 
induces  him  to  seek  the  cooperation  of  others  similarly 
situated.  In  this  social  cooperation  society  originates. 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  writers  here  examined  hold 
that  the  economic  needs  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the 
social  structure.  Barnave  holds  thus  far  to  an  economic 
theory  as  to  social  development.  He  also  teaches,  and 
in  this  he  differs  from  Hobbes,  that  not  fear,  but  the 
mutual  feeling  of  cooperation  and  a  need  of  social  aid 
in  economic  endeavors  lead  men  to  enter  society. 

But  this  increase  of  population  and  its  accompanying 
growth  of  social  life  has  another  outgrowth  of  the  utmost 
importance  in  the  process  of  social  movements.  At 
1  "La  terre  entifere  est  commune  k  tons."  —  Ibid.,  p.  5. 


3IO      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

this  stage  appears  the  system  of  property.  At  first 
developing  slowly  with  a  nomad  people,  it  takes  on  a 
very  great,  indeed  a  commanding,  importance  when  the 
tribes  become  fixed  to  the  soil.1  Because  of  this,  men 
abandon  their  freedom  in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place, 
they  submit  themselves  to  nature  and  the  tyranny  of 
her  laws,  losing  that  freedom  marking  life  by  the 
chase.2 

More  important,  however,  than  this  unavoidable 
subjection  to  nature  through  this  industrial  change,  is 
the  rise  of  social  classes  due  to  the  equally  inevitable 
growth  of  inequality,  based  upon  economic  differences. 
Barnave  emphasizes  the  fact  that  with  the  growth  of 
landed  property,  inequalities  came  to  be  fixed  in  fact 
and  law,  and  the  basis  for  permanent  social  classes  and 
class-distinctions  was  laid.  Barnave  emphasizes  the 
very  significant  fact  that  inequality  fixes  itself  not  alone 
in  the  laws  and  institutions  of  the  country,  but  in  the 
nature  of  men.  The  original  feeling  of  independence 
and  of  self-sufficiency  passes  away,  and  the  condition 
of  poverty  reacts  upon  the  individual  character.  No- 
where is  the  English  adage  more  clearly  stated,  that  the 

1 "  Enfin,  les  besoins  de  la  population  s'accroissant  toujours, 
1'homme  est  oblige*  de  chercher  sa  nourriture  dans  le  sein  de  la  terre." 
—  "Introduction  a  la  Revolution  fran?aise,"  p.  6. 

*  "  Le  cultivateur  sacrifie  ainsi  toute  l'inde*pendance  que  la  nature 
lui  a  donn£e ;  le  sol  1'enchalne  parce  qu'il  le  fait  vivre."  —  Ibid., 
p.  9. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS  311 

"destruction  of  the  poor  is  their  poverty."  *  Such  was 
the  theory  of  Barnave  explaining  the  rise  of  inequality 
and  the  manner  whereby  it  perpetuates  itself  in  society. 

With  equal  clearness  he  points  out,  how,  under  the 
pressure  of  economic  necessity  society  passes  from  one 
industrial  stage  to  another.  If  Barnave  was  a  precursor 
of  Karl  Marx  in  his  social  views,  and  especially  in  the 
emphasis  he  placed  on  the  influence  of  the  economic 
factor,  he  even  more  clearly  anticipated  Frederick  List 2 
in  stating  the  theory  of  the  evolution  of  society  through 
a  series  of  industrial  stages.  He  discusses  society  as 
it  advances,  under  the  pressure  of  increasing  population, 
through  four  stages  :  the  hunting,  agricultural,  agri- 
cultural-manufacturing, and  the  commercial  stages. 
The  classification  by  List  is  somewhat  more  complex ; 
it  is  no  more  clearly  conceived  nor  logically  stated. 
Throughout  the  discussion  Barnave  holds  to  the  idea 
that  society  constantly  unfolds  under  the  pressure  of 
economic  necessity.3 

As  a  result  of  this  rather  interesting  analysis  of 
society  Barnave  reaches  some  important  conclusions. 

1 "  Enfin  dans  cet  age  de  la  socie"te*  le  pauvre  n'est  pas  moins  as- 
servi  pas  son  ignorance;  il  a  perdu  cette  sagacite"  naturelle,  cette 
hardiesse  d'imagination  qui  caracte*risent  1'homme  errant  dans  les 
bois."  —  Ibid.,  p.  10. 

J  Frederick  List,  "  Das  Nationale  System  der  Politischen  Oekono- 
mie,"  1845,  Ch.  13. 

1  "  Introduction  a  la  Revolution  franchise,"  pp.  10-13. 


312     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

His  statement  of  the  manner  in  which  the  propertied 
class  captured  the  organs  of  control  and  turned  them  to 
their  own  account  could  scarcely  be  improved  upon.1 
In  like  manner,  he  has  expressed  the  theory  of  a  class- 
struggle  and  the  actual  formation  and  destruction  of 
classes  in  modern  Europe  as  a  result  of  the  changes  in 
the  control  over  economic  goods.  In  the  very  midst  of 
the  great  revolutionary  struggle,  Barnave  saw  the  rise 
of  the  democracy  and  of  a  new  aristocracy.  These  he 
interpreted,  however,  not  as  political  but  as  economic 
phenomena. 

To  him  the  great  Revolution  was  an  economic  and 
not  a  political  event.  As  property  shifted  from  land 
into  capital,  the  old  landed  aristocracy  lost  its  control, 
and  the  equilibrium  of  power  thus  disturbed  sought  and 
found  a  new  centre  in  the  rising  democracy  which  had 
come  into  prominence  through  this  great  industrial 
change.2  Through  the  centuries  these  changes  had 
been  in  progress  until  the  growth  of  capital  had  made 
the  supremacy  of  the  landed  interests  no  longer  pos- 

1  "  Comme,  avant  Pe*poque  ou  le  commerce  existe,  Paristocratie 
est,  par  la  nature  des  choses,  en  possession  du  pouvoir,  c'est  elle  alors 
qui  fait  les  lois,  qui  cre*e  les  pre'juge's  et  qui  dirige  les  habitudes  des 
peuples;  elle  pourra  balancer  longtemps,  par  Pe"nergie  des  insti- 
tutions, Pinfluence  des  causes  naturelles."  — "  Introduction  a  la 
Revolution  francaise,"  p.  13. 

*  "Les  communes  acque"rant  des  richesses  par  le  travail  ont  achete* 
d'abord  leur  liberte*  et  ensuite  une  portion  des  terres  et  Paristocratie 
a  perdu  successivement  son  empire  et  ses  richesses."  —  Ibid.,  p.  19. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  RADICALS  313 

sible.  It  was  when  the  balance  of  power  fell  on  the 
side  of  capital  that  the  French  Revolution  was  made 
possible  and  necessary.1 

1  "  C'est  cette  progression,  commune  a  tous  les  gouvernements 
europ&ns,  qui  a  prepar6  en  France  une  revolution  democratique,  et 
1'a  fait  e"clater  a  la  fin  du  XVIIIme  siecle."  —  Ibid.,  p.  20. 


CHAPTER  IX 

CONCLUSION 

SOCIAL  inequalities,  political  injustice,  and  class- 
distinctions  have,  in  a  variety  of  forms,  marked  the 
progress  of  human  society.  Many  causes  have  con- 
tributed to  the  spirit  of  unrest  and  to  conflict  of  interests. 
To  what  extent  these  unfortunate  conditions  rest  on 
economic  maladjustment  can  be  only  roughly  esti- 
mated. It  was  a  characteristic  of  the  writers  before 
the  French  Revolution  to  attribute  many  social  and  polit- 
ical wrongs  to  unwise  economic  arrangements.  Their 
proposed  remedy  would  be  called  socialistic  because  it 
hoped  for  amelioration  through  changes  in  the  economic 
system.  The  chief  feature  of  these  changes  was  the 
extension  of  public  power  into  the  sphere  of  industry 
before  occupied  by  the  individual. 

Socialism  now  as  then  is  called  upon  to  meet  and 
solve  some  very  difficult  problems.  It  is  necessary  to 
consider  the  question  whether  socialism  is  adapted  to 
human  nature,  and  whether  there  are  any  permanent, 
enduring  qualities  in  man.  It  will  not  do  to  assume 
that  society  has  always  been  dominated  by  the  economic 
motive  nor  that  man  has  always  been  mercenary  in 
spirit.  Outside  the  sphere  of  predatory  life  there  is 

3'4 


CONCLUSION  3 1 5 

probably  much  ground  for  Spencer's  subdivision  of 
society  into  militant  and  industrial  society.  Many  eras 
in  history  might  be  pointed  out  in  which  other  motives 
than  the  economic  seem  to  have  dominated.1  It  is 
highly  probable  that  socialists  have  overestimated  the 
completeness  of  their  analysis  and  that  great  dis- 
appointments might  follow  socialistic  experiments. 
Although  modern  socialism  has  become  more  scientific 
in  spirit  and  historical  in  method,  there  still  linger 
many  suggestions  of  its  origin  in  the  sentimental  the- 
ories of  the  past.  There  is  still  regnant  a  spirit  of 
unreasoned  hopefulness  in  the  omnipotence  of  the 
social  will.  The  vicious  assumption  still  persists  that  a 
condition  of  social  quietism  can  be  reached  and  main- 
tained.2 Such  a  condition  is  neither  hoped  for  nor 
expected  by  social  students ;  for  the  questions  concern- 
ing the  reconciliation  of  socialism  and  evolution  dis- 
cussed by  Haeckel  and  Virchow  in  1877  have  not  been 
answered.  In  the  light  of  evolutionary  teaching,  it  is 
not  at  all  clear  how  society  devoid  of  conflict  can  make 
progress.  If  progress  depends  upon  selection  and  this 
is  conditioned  upon  conflict,  socialism,  however  hu- 
mane, seems  to  be  unfavorable  to  progress.3  Socialists 

1  Peixotto,  op.  tit.,  p.  300,  note. 

2  For  a  discussion  of    this  see  Bernstein,  "  Voraussetzungen  des 
Socialismus,"  pp.  169  et  seq. 

3  Mackaye,  "The  Economy  of  Happiness,"  N.  Y.,  1907,  discusses 
the  chances  of  a  happy  adjustment  of  social  relations  under  another 
regime. 


316      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

themselves  must  regard  the  very  reasonable  fear  that 
society  might  stagnate.  There  is  danger  that  a  scheme 
of  mutuality  would  transform  society  into  a  mere 
nerveless  mass,  —  inert,  unprogressive,  moribund,  and 
like  feudalism  lead  nowhere  but  to  its  own  destruction. 

Furthermore,  as  socialism  moves  from  the  realm  of 
Utopias,  vague  theories,  and  pleasing  generalizations 
into  a  sphere  of  practical  schemes  and  attempted  re- 
form, the  fact  of  the  changing  nature  of  industrial 
society  presents  itself  to  confuse  and  complicate. 
Socialists  themselves  have  not  been  blind  to  those 
changes.  Indeed,  they  have  been  most  persistent  in 
pointing  out  the  fact  that  society  progresses  in  cycles 
as  classes  become  endowed  with  new  economic  powers. 
Landlordism  gives  way  to  capitalism  and  the  feudal 
"Aristocracy"  to  the  "Bourgeoisie."1  This  class,  in 
turn,  is  to  be  overthrown  as  the  proletariat  gains  on 
one  hand  and  the  giant  industry  on  the  other. 

Equally  great  changes  take  place  in  the  industrial 
methods  and  in  the  forms  of  industrial  organization. 
Manufacture  and  commerce  have  come  to  take  the  place 
of  agriculture  as  dominant  facts  in  industrial  life. 
The  household  has  yielded  to  the  factory  in  the  sphere 
of  manufacture,  and  handicraft  to  labor  with  the 
machine.  Instead  of  goods  made  to  special  order, 
commodities  are  manufactured  for  the  general  market. 

1  Jaurfes,  "Histoire  Socialiste,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  96  et  seq. 


CONCLUSION  317 

Prices  earlier  based  upon  agreement  between  consumer 
and  producer  were  for  a  century  settled  by  competition, 
but  owing  to  vast  changes  they  are  now  fixed  by  con- 
tract between  producers  under  conditions  of  partial 
monopoly,  or  by  the  manufacturers  where  the  monopoly 
is  complete. 

As  a  result  of  these  changes  socialism  has  been  com- 
pelled to  abandon  many  of  its  conclusions,  and  has 
seen  many  of  its  earlier  hopes  shattered  and  its  as- 
sumptions disproved.  At  first  it  waged  war  on  free 
competition  and  saw  in  this  industrial  anarchy  in 
society  one  of  the  main  causes  of  its  protest.  The 
past  quarter  of  a  century  has  seen  the  system  of  com- 
petitive industry  disappear  while  a  new  and  worse  enemy 
in  the  form  of  monopoly  has  appeared.  With  the 
enormous  widening  of  the  markets  during  the  first 
quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  hopes  of  cosmo- 
politan industry  and  world -markets  under  the  regime  of 
free  trade  seemed  to  be  realized.  With  the  rebirth  of 
nationalism, with  the  Civil  War  in  America,  the  unifica- 
tion of  Italy,  and  the  creation  of  the  German  Empire 
and  the  consequent  isolation  of  France,  these  hopes 
have  been  overthrown.  With  the  growth  of  this  new 
nationalism  and  the  attendant  spirit  of  mercantilism, 
shown  in  all  important  lands,  new  difficulties  present 
themselves.  The  first  of  these  was  seen  in  the  seventies, 
when,  as  a  result  of  the  Franco- German  War,  the  famous 


318      SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE   FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

"International"  was  hopelessly  wrecked,  and  again  the 
dreams  of  a  world-wide  brotherhood  were  shattered. 
Later  examples  of  the  influence  of  this  mercantile 
spirit  are  seen  as  western  nations,  in  their  struggle  for 
markets,  cling  with  tenacity  to  the  existing  type  of 
organization  lest  any  change  in  method  destroy  their 
power;  while  new  lands,  like  Japan,  adopt  the  most 
advanced  form  of  capitalistic  industry. 

Moreover,  with  the  growth  of  the  machine-industry 
has  come  a  minute  division  of  labor.  The  effects  of  this 
change,  discussed  ever  since  the  classical  analysis  of 
Adam  Smith,  have  not  yet  been  shown  in  their  social 
bearing;  for  this  subdivision  of  labor  has  developed  a 
vast  difference  of  skill  among  laborers  and  a  correspond- 
ing variety  of  wage.  As  the  wages  vary  so  vary  the 
standards,  and  this,  as  has  been  said,  is  destructive  of 
class-sympathy  and  of  class-struggle.  Not  only  do  the 
categories  of  skilled  and  unskilled  labor  play  a  most 
important  r61e  in  trade-union  organization,  but  they 
must  soon  be  a  cause  of  apprehension  for  socialist 
leaders. 

In  this  connection  attention  is  called  to  the  larger 
aspects  of  this  division  of  labor.  No  fact  is  more 
apparent  nor  has  any  been  more  fortunate,  than 
the  tendency  of  social  institutions  to  develop  along  the 
line  of  their  separate  functions.  From  the  age  of 
Thomas  More  on,  this  growth  of  division  of  labor  is 


CONCLUSION  319 

manifest.  The  power  to  dominate  the  beliefs  of  men 
and  to  deal  with  problems  of  morals  has  gradually  been 
relegated  to  the  sphere  of  the  church.  Slowly  did  the 
church  abandon  those  claims  so  long  urged  to  govern 
in  civil  affairs,  leaving  a  certain  area  undisputed  to  the 
state.  As  a  part  of  this  same  movement  the  individual 
grew  in  power  as  an  economic  unit,  and  as  individualism 
developed,  he  gained  control  over  his  industrial  activity. 
In  so  far,  then,  as  progress  involves  this  growth  of  the 
individual,  socialism  is  reactionary  and  retrogressive. 
It  conflicts  with  the  century-old  tendency  toward 
division  of  labor  in  this  enlarged  social  sense.  It 
totally  confuses  the  spheres  of  civic  and  economic 
activity,  degrading  the  state  from  the  high  purpose  to 
which  it  was  born,  to  govern  in  the  former,  and  denying 
to  man  at  once  the  privilege  and  responsibility  to  work 
out  unhindered  his  economic  career  in  the  latter. 

Karl  Marx  was  the  last  and  the  greatest  philosopher 
of  socialism.  In  his  masterpiece,  "Capital,"  theo- 
rizing, both  sentimental  and  scientific,  finds  its  climax 
and  its  close.  In  his  activities  as  an  organizer  and 
agitator  he  came  into  contact  with  those  economic 
facts  with  which  socialism  was  forced  to  deal  and  thus 
connects  the  old  with  the  new  socialism.  To  these 
mighty  changes  so  soon  to  disturb  industrial  society, 
the  earlier  theorists  paid  little  heed.  They  were  ideal- 
ists and  cared  little  for  the  hard  social  facts  which 


32O     SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION 

their  followers  must  meet.  So  long  as  socialism  was 
academic  this  was  well ;  when,  in  the  fifties,  it  became  a 
class-movement  at  the  hands  of  Marx  and  Lassalle,  the 
principles  which  had  grown  into  a  cult  and  those 
economic  doctrines  on  which  they  were  based  came  to 
be  severely  tried. 

Among  those  principles  one  of  the  most  important 
was  that  the  effects  of  the  socialistic  propaganda  were  to 
reach  all  lands,  and  this  industrial  brotherhood  was  to 
embrace  all  mankind.  The  cosmopolitan  nature  of  the 
teachings  of  More  and  Campanella  has  been  pointed 
out.  Utopia  was  a  microcosm,  the  prototype  of  a 
perfect  society,  where  all  would  be  free  and  where 
toleration  would  be  complete.  The  practical  applica- 
tion of  this  theory  was  the  "International"  of  Karl 
Marx.  These  hopes,  however,  were  disappointed  in 
the  seventies  because  of  national  enmities ;  while  to-day 
there  appears  the  still  more  difficult  problem  of  treating 
the  different  races  which  press  themselves  on  the  west- 
ern world.  As  the  practical  questions  growing  out  of 
increased  immigration  knocked  the  idealism  out  of 
early  American  democracy  and  placed  laws  on  the 
statute  books  limiting  certain  races  from  entering,  so 
has  the  same  development  of  the  race  problem  wrecked 
the  liberal  cosmopolitan  pretensions  of  early  socialism. 
The  recent  drift  of  affairs  shows  that  socialism  is 
limited  to  the  white  race  at  least,  with  still  narrower 


CONCLUSION  321 

bounds  possible.  At  this  point  the  idealism  of  socialism 
has  broken  down,  regardless  of  what  effects  may  follow 
as  to  its  practical  programme.  As  a  system  of  selfish- 
ness it  may  still  persist;  its  altruistic  claims  it  will 
probably  abandon.1 

It  is  even  true  that  within  the  national  groups  them- 
selves the  unprecedented  growth  of  cities,  with  their 
giant  activities,  threatens  to  still  further  break  down 
the  social  solidarity.  The  necessities  of  the  case  leading 
to  the  ownership  of  the  public  utilities  may  be  the 
entering  wedge  for  a  large  socialistic  control,  but  the 
effects  of  this  on  the  growth  of  socialism  may  be  very 
doubtful.  Municipal  socialism  has  been  carried  far  in 
France,  and  its  sentiment  gains  ground  rapidly  in 
America;  yet  such  development  seems  to  conflict  with 
the  larger  intent  of  early  socialism.  Not  only  is  this  so, 
but  it  is  very  uncertain  whether  the  centralized  type  of 
government  and  the  concentrated  form  of  control  now 
on  the  increase  are  compatible  with  the  drift  socialism 
is  taking  in  the  direction  of  social  democracy. 

While  this  seems  a  reversion  toward  the  ideals  ap- 
pearing in  prerevolutionary  socialism,  yet  the  great 
political  changes  here  suggested  have  compelled  the 
abandonment  of  one  of  its  most  distinctive  principles; 
namely,  its  absolute  monarchic  nature.  No  ques- 
tion has  more  severely  shaken  the  system  than 

1  Clark,  "  The  Labor  Movement  in  Australasia,"  N.  Y.,  1906,  p.  135. 
Y 


322      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

the  attempt  to  reconcile  the  spirit  of  early  socialism 
with  the  spirit  of  democracy.  The  career  of  the  Social 
Democracy  in  Germany,  marked  by  the  struggle  to 
impress  this  new  spirit  on  socialism,  clearly  illustrates 
how  the  changes  of  the  past  century  have  transformed 
the  early  method  of  socialism.  The  "prince"  and  the 
"hierarchy"  adhered  to  in  the  earlier  centuries  must 
yield  to  the  decentralized  rule  of  the  people  as  "social 
democracy"  collides  with  "state  socialism." 

It  is  owing  also  to  this  growth  of  democracy  that  the 
radical  nature  of  prerevolutionary  socialism  has  been 
much  modified.  Democracy  means  the  coming  to 
power  of  the  lower  classes  without  disturbing  the 
existing  economic  equilibrium.  It  makes  possible  the 
participation  of  the  lower  classes  in  new  privileges  and 
rights  without  altering,  in  the  least,  industrial  relation- 
ships. Two  results  have  followed,  both  of  the  first 
importance  to  the  radical  type  of  socialism.  Some 
have  been  satisfied  with  the  form  of  power  though  they 
may  lack  the  substance  and  be  in  no  better  condition 
economically.  Another  and  far  larger  class  uses  the 
new  power  thus  given  it  to  ameliorate  conditions  and 
improve  that  social  system  it  earlier  was  bent  on  destroy- 
ing. Hence,  there  is  lacking  to-day  that  singleness  of 
purpose  so  characteristic  of  prerevolutionary  theorists, 
and  the  reformer  is  more  in  evidence  than  the  revo- 
lutionary; while  the  programmes  of  modern  socialist 


CONCLUSION  323 

congresses  provide  for  a  most  general  scheme  of  political 
and  social  reform. 

Indeed,  the  danger  seems  imminent  that  socialism  will 
lose  its  distinctive  features  and  be  merged  into  very 
liberal  reform  parties.  The  bitterness  of  the  debate 
between  Bebel  and  Jaures  in  the  Brussels  congress 
shows  how  seriously  this  fear  is  entertained  by  the 
ablest  representatives  of  socialism  to-day.  For,  as 
Proudhon  said,  if  socialism  means  merely  reform,  then 
are  we  all  socialists.  Instances  are  not  wanting  to  show 
that  radical  action  was  averted  by  the  adoption  of 
reform  measures ;  this  was  the  case  in  France  in  the 
great  Revolution  and  again  in  1848.  Bismarck  took 
the  wind  out  of  the  socialists'  sails  in  Germany  by 
yielding  to  various  reforms.  While  to  the  more  cynical 
critic  many  of  these  measures  of  aid  and  reform  may 
suggest  the  creation  of  a  "Benevolent  Feudalism," 
still  there  are  many  who  believe  moderate  reform  is 
worth  striving  for,  while  many  others  do  not  object  to 
being  taken  care  of.  While  this  was  not  the  chief  point 
at  issue  between  the  radical  Lassalle  and  the  conserva- 
tive Schultze-Delitzsch,  yet  the  danger  of  the  reformer's 
cutting  the  ground  from  under  the  socialist  has  been 
apparent  since  then.  It  is  over  the  nature  of  the 
programme  which  socialists  are  to  follow  in  this  con- 
nection that  the  threatening  break  has  come  in  the 
party  in  Germany,  the  injurious  effects  of  which  are 
apparent  to-day. 


324      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

The  problem,  however,  in  its  widest  extent  involves 
the  relationship  of  the  modem  trades-unions  to  social- 
ism. The  fate  of  socialism  in  the  near  future  at  least, 
either  as  a  system  of  faith  or  active  propaganda,  depends 
largely  on  the  attitude  which  these  powerful  organiza- 
tions of  laborers  assume.  Prerevolutionary  social- 
ism, and  indeed  socialism  down  to  very  modern  times, 
had  no  conflict  either  in  theory  or  practice  with  a  rival 
system.  Its  exponents  were  the  only  representatives  of 
the  submerged  classes,  and  the  contradictions  between 
the  radical  socialist  and  the  practical  reformer  were  not 
at  all  apparent  until  agitation,  due  partly  to  itself  and 
partly  to  rival  organizations,  opened  a  positive  cam- 
paign for  the  betterment  of  the  class  in  question. 

Of  the  attempts  made  to  carry  out  these  ideal  schemes 
little  can  be  said.  Many  attempts  have  been  made  to 
realize  the  early  dreams  through  the  organization  of 
ideal  communities.  The  only  one  of  any  importance, 
the  Jesuit  experiment  in  Paraguay,  has  been  already 
discussed.  The  more  recent  ones  have  been  on  a  much 
smaller  scale  and  have  served  no  purpose  but  to  show 
how  futile  such  attempts  are,  or  to  give  social  students 
and  dilettantes  in  reform  the  opportunity  to  establish 
social  experiment  stations.  Undertaken  by  impractical 
dreamers  with  impossible  theories,  they  have  had  no 
more  influence  on  the  existing  social  system  than  had 
the  republic  of  Saint  Marino  on  the  monarchic  system 


CONCLUSION  325 

of  Europe.  These  communities  have  been  marked  by 
interesting  though  totally  unimportant  features,  such  as 
the  sensational  communism  of  Oneida,  the  puerile 
mutualism  of  Amana,  or  the  travesty  on  finance  of  Zion 
City.  These  experiments  from  Icaria  to  the  present 
have  been  viewed  with  mingled  feelings  of  sympathy 
and  distrust.  There  has  been  radical  legislation  in 
some  places,  such  as  that  in  Australasia ;  but  these 
movements  are  free  from  the  unworkable  plans  here 
discussed. 

The  opposition  to  property,  both  individual  and 
corporate,  which  More  entertained,  has  been  evident  since 
in  a  variety  of  forms.  It  appeared  in  the  French  Revo- 
lution in  the  radical  theories  discussed  above  and  in 
the  milder  protest  against  the  lands  of  the  clergy.  Ben- 
tham  argues  very  clearly  and  forcefully  against  the  right 
of  inheritance,  especially  in  collateral  lines.  Marx  and 
Engels  in  their  Communist  Manifesto  took  a  very  radi- 
cal stand,  much  modified  by  their  later  utterances,  in 
which  capital  alone  falls  under  the  ban.  Proudhon's 
doctrine  condemns  property  in  a  still  more  severe 
manner.  Modern  socialism  in  its  programmes  still 
attacks  vigorously  the  right  of  property,  though  current 
opinion  is  by  no  means  at  one  on  this  proposition. 

The  effect  of  the  increase  of  the  number  of  property- 
holders  especially  among  laborers  has  probably  strength- 
ened sentiment  in  its  favor.  The  opposition  aroused 


326      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

because  of  the  abuses  of  corporate  wealth  is  largely 
neutralized  by  the  increased  influence  of  small  stock- 
holders.1 The  movement  toward  municipal  ownership 
in  the  cities  has  chiefly  to  do  with  franchises  and  does 
not  at  all  prove  that  the  opposition  to  private  property 
is  growing.  It  has,  with  the  inheritance  tax,  principally 
a  fiscal  significance.  The  attack  on  landed  property, 
led  in  America  by  Henry  George  and  in  England  by 
Mr.  Wallace,  which  took  the  form  of  land  nationaliza- 
tion, arose  from  the  unfortunate  use  made  of  public 
lands  in  this  country  and  the  hated  landlordism  in 
England.  The  movement  in  both  countries  was  based 
upon  passing  phenomena  and  should  not  be  interpreted 
as  directed  in  principle  against  property. 

The  attacks  on  the  family  so  fully  developed  in  the 
prerevolutionary  writings  have,  it  may  be  said,  very 
much  subsided  since  the  Revolution.  Much  has  been 
written  recently  bearing  upon  this  question,  but  chiefly 
by  cynical  critics,  sensational  writers,  and  social  students 
whose  works  are  largely  academic  in  their  appeal  un- 
less some  oversensitive  person  feels  either  offended  or 
frightened,  and  by  opposition  gives  such  works  general 
notoriety.  Prophecies  of  the  decline  of  the  family  are 
based  generally  either  upon  unfortunate  personal 
experiences  or  statistics  taken  from  divorce  courts  and 
totally  vitiated  by  false  methods  of  analysis  and  are 

1  See  Bernstein,  "  Voraussetzungen  des  Socialismus,"  pp.  46  et  seq. 


CONCLUSION  327 

therefore  unreliable.  The  great  mass  of  the  people  of 
all  classes  read  these  things  as  interesting  comments  of 
the  day,  but  naturally  draw  no  serious  conclusions  from 
them. 

The  proposition  so  strongly  urged  by  the  early 
writers  that  the  state  regulate  marriages  is  to-day  being 
agitated.  That  criminality,  insanity,  mendicity,  and 
physical  defects  might  become  less  frequent  did  society 
more  closely  guard  the  institution  of  the  family,  is  the 
hope  of  many,  both  scientists  and  laymen.  While  the 
movement  has  gone  no  farther  yet  than  medical  con- 
ferences and  radical  legislatures,  it  still  exists,  and  a  lack 
of  confidence  in  the  law  of  natural  selection  obtains 
in  many  minds.  It  is  an  illustration  of  the  persistence 
of  that  happy  optimism  which  marked  the  prerevo- 
lutionary  times  whose  culmination  is  seen  in  the  radical 
action  of  the  French  Revolution. 

It  only  remains  to  restate  those  doctrines  dominant 
before  the  Revolution  which  have  been  applied  to  some 
extent  since.  As  has  been  said,  prerevolutionary  so- 
cialism had  few  definite  theories  on  which  to  advance. 
From  abstract  reasoning  on  one  hand  and  observation 
of  primitive  irian  on  the  other,  there  developed  the 
theory  of  a  state  of  nature  and  of  natural  rights.  This 
notion  played  a  large  part  both  in  social  and  political 
radicalism  up  to  the  French  Revolution.  Since  that 
time  the  theory  has  been  gradually  abandoned,  until 


328      SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

to-day  few  definitely  declare  for  the  doctrine.  It  is, 
however,  unconsciously  adhered  to  by  radical  theorists. 
All  advocates  of  the  destruction  of  property  rights  are 
aiming  for  a  return  to  primitive  man  and  natural  society. 
Every  proposition  to  disturb  the  monogamous  family, 
either  directly  or  by  attacking  those  institutions  on 
which  it  seems  to  depend,  has  as  a  logical  result  a 
return  to  a  state  of  nature.  For,  as  Spencer  points  out, 
the  distinction  between  lower  and  higher  forms  of  life 
grows  through  the  process  of  superorganic  evolution. 
The  development  of  institutions  means  the  departure 
from  barbarism.  In  the  same  direction  is  the  tendency 
to  limit  luxury  and  reduce  wants  to  primary  wants. 
This  means  a  return  to  nature  and  to  activities  which 
respond  to  the  natural  appetites. 

The  doctrine  of  the  right  to  subsistence  which  played 
so  important  a  part  before  the  Revolution  has  vastly 
changed  as  time  has  gone  on.  The  radical  claims  of 
labor  to  certain  rights,  either  to  labor  or  to  support,  has 
given  way  to  a  demand  for  a  more  equitable  scheme  of 
distribution  which  would  give  to  all  a  competency.  To 
the  modern  problems  of  poverty,  unemployment,  and 
indigence  all  classes  seem  inclined  to  bring  the  aid  of 
rational  charity;  and  to  the  conflict  of  interests  grow- 
ing out  of  modern  society,  the  reconciling  spirit  of  a 
larger  philanthropy. 

To  the   early  theory  that  environment  is  a  most 


CONCLUSION  329 

fruitful  cause  of  evil,  modern  times  gives  ever  readier 
assent.  Countless  evidences  seen  in  the  treatment 
of  criminals,  of  insane,  and  of  paupers  and  of  those 
activities  to  rid  society  of  dangerous  influences  show  a 
growing  consciousness  of  social  responsibility.  Along 
with  this  develops  the  idea  of  man's  worth  and  of 
his  possibilities.  Many  of  the  educational  ideas  of 
the  early  writers  have  to-day  been  realized,  and  the 
opportunities  for  culture  have  been  vastly  extended. 

Socialism  has  passed  through  three  stages  correspond- 
ing in  a  way  to  Comte's  threefold  classification  of  the 
progress  of  thought;  the  religious  or  romantic,  the 
critical,  and  the  scientific.  The  romantic  period  here 
discussed  was  marked  by  idealism  both  hi  the  realm  of 
social  and  of  political  thought.  Though  far  less  active 
in  the  former  than  in  the  latter,  it  has  not  been  fruitless. 
Certainly  the  dreamers  of  the  past  have  not  lived  in 
vain.  Those  who  caught  visions  of  the  city  beautiful 
and  a  regenerated  society,  and  through  them  revealed 
the  social  possibilities  of  mankind,  have  had  their 
mission.  Nor  is  a  material  realization  of  these  dreams 
necessary.  There  is  a  social  idealism.  There  is  a 
Utopian  attitude  of  mind.  There  is  an  optimism, 
which,  transforming  the  world  in  the  ideal,  helps  to 
transform  it  in  the  real.  Into  this  lofty  sphere  of  con- 
templation Plato  moved  and  gave  the  world  the  "Re- 
public." The  Christian  Fathers  partook  of  this  hope 


330       SOCIALISM  BEFORE  THE  FRENCH   REVOLUTION 

and  pictured  and  tried  to  realize  the  kingdom  of  God 
on  earth.  Mediaeval  asceticism  hoped  to  solve  the 
problem  of  a  happy  life  by  the  doctrine  and  practice  of 
a  sublime  self-abnegation.  The  humanists,  beginning 
with  Thomas  More,  combined  the  elements  of  both 
Greek  and  Christian  culture  and  pictured  a  society  ruled 
neither  by  the  voluptuous  luxury  of  the  one  nor  by  the 
austere  stoicism  of  the  other.  From  the  gloom  and 
disappointment  of  the  French  Revolution  reformers 
again  took  refuge  in  the  Utopia  of  social  bliss  with  Saint- 
Simon  and  Fourier,  as  philosophy  had  done  in  the 
idealism  of  Hegel  and  politics  with  Fichte. 

Into  the  world  of  modern  thought  from  a  variety  of 
sources  have  come  the  influences  of  the  spirit  of  political 
optimism  and  social  idealism.  These  are  the  corrective 
and  cohesive  forces  in  society.  There  arises  in  conflict 
with  these,  from  the  experience  and  observation  of  the 
hard  facts  of  economic  life,  the  spirit  of  individual 
unrest,  of  philosophical  cynicism,  and  of  social  hopeless- 
ness, —  destructive  forces  in  social  life.  Men  naturally 
partake  of  this  spirit  of  optimism  in  vastly  differing 
degrees.  In  most  cases,  however,  it  preserves  them 
from  seeing  the  world  with  a  jaundiced  eye,  "  to  which  all 
order  festers,  all  things  here  are  out  of  joint."  It  is  not 
the  least  of  the  virtues  of  the  prerevolutionary  writers 
that  they  portrayed  the  possibilities  of  a  regenerated 
society  and  thus  furthered  the  spirit  of  optimism.  As  a 


CONCLUSION  .  331 

chief  means  to  a  realization  of  these  hopes  they  em- 
phasized the  need  of  a  higher  spiritual  development  for 
all  the  members  of  society.  Thus  the  capacities  of  all 
were  to  be  ennobled  and  expanded. 

This  is  the  deeper  intent  of  the  thought  of  the  human- 
ist —  Thomas  More ;  it  gives  practical  significance  to 
the  occult  teachings  of  Campanella,  forms  the  sub- 
stance of  the  doctrines  of  Bacon,  and  is  the  foundation 
of  the  optimism  of  Morelly.  The  prerevolutionary 
doctrine,  "To  each  according  to  his  wants,  from  each 
according  to  his  capacity,"  is  a  lofty  concept  of  social 
relationships  when,  through  proper  economic  adjust- 
ment, both  wants  and  capacities  are  to  be  infinitely 
elevated  and  enlarged.  Realizing  as  these  writers  did 
the  power  of  desire  and  motive  as  social  forces,  they 
have  shown  the  possibilities  of  a  society  where  the 
one  has  been  ennobled  and  rationalized,  and  the 
other  has  been  broadened  and  humanized.  Beyond 
this  teaching  few  socialist  writers  have  gone;  up  to  it 
few  have  come.  It  is  in  harmony  with  such  doctrine 
that  the  individual  can  realize  his  own  highest  worth, 
and  that  society  can  realize  from  him  the  truest  service. 


INDEX 


Academic  nature  of  early  socialism, 
34;  its  transformation  to  a 
laboring  man's  movement,  34. 

Age  af  Discovery,  its  influence  on 
social  theory,  253;  use  made  of 
primitive  peoples  by  Swift,  36; 
influence  on  Thomas  More,  36; 
origin  of  the  romance  of  travel, 

35- 

Agrarian  Law,  Babeuf's  attack  on 

it,  293. 
Agrarian  Socialism  early  dominant, 

44,  264. 
Anarchism  defined,  16;  its  relation 

to  socialism,  16-17;    comparison 

with    democracy,    16;     practical 

tendencies  of,  16. 
Aristotle,  theory  of  social  evolution 

of,  19;  his  relation  to  the  "lais- 

sez-fairists,"    20;     influence    on 

later  thought,  144. 
Arnold     of     Brescia,     an     Italian 

socialist,  133. 

Asceticism,  decline  of,  88-90;  influ- 
ence of  asceticism  on  classes, 

88-89. 
Augustine,   Saint,    "The    City    of 

God,"  65;   his  relation  to  More, 

63- 

Babeuf,  facts  of  his  life,  289-290; 
his  relation  to  the  radicals,  290, 
294;  writings  of,  292;  commun- 
ism of,  291,  293;  his  attack  on 
society,  296;  optimism  of,  295; 
his  theory  of  a  class-conflict, 
293-296. 

Bacon,  notice  of  his  life,  183;  rela- 
tion to  Campanella,  184;  "New 
Atlantis"  of,  183,  185;  social 
teachings  of,  184;  materialistic 
tendencies  of,  186. 


Barnave,  character  of,  306;  debt 
of  socialism  to,  307;  environ- 
ment theory  of,  308 ;  his  doctrine 
of  progress,  309 ;  economic  factor 
emphasized,  308;  his  theory  of 
social .  origins,  309 ;  property 
theory  of,  309;  a  precursor  of 
Frederick  List,  311;  his  theory 
of  the  Revolution,  312-313;  his 
relation  to  Marx,  307;  his 
theory  of  inequality,  310. 

Beaurieu,  a  forerunner  of  Rousseau, 
198. 

Bebel,  a  radical  socialist,  323. 

Behn,  Mrs.,  theory  of,  "Le  bon 
sauvage,"  36,  219;  influence  on 
Rousseau,  219. 

Bismarck  and  socialism,  323. 

Bodin,  a  political  idealist,  138. 

Boissel,  notice  of  his  life,  283; 
property  theory  of,  284;  his 
theory  of  distribution,  286;  at- 
tack upon  culture,  286;  his 
opinion  of  Rousseau,  287;  his 
relation  to  Morelly,  288. 

Campanella,  authorities  on  his  life, 
134-135;  his  place  in  history  of 
socialism,  136,  187;  intellectual 
environment  of,  137;  comparison 
with  More,  139-141;  scientific 
method  of,  142;  his  attitude 
toward  Aristotle,  144-145,  179; 
general  philosophy  of,  145,  148- 
149;  his  theory  of  social  harmony, 
150,  190;  his  sympathy  with 
Plato,  151,  170;  Campanella 
and  Bacon  compared,  152;  his 
debt  to  the  Jesuits,  152,  159; 
cosmopolitan  nature  of,  161; 
his  relations  to  the  Papal  See, 
162,  188;  political  theory  of ,  165, 


333 


334 


INDEX 


175;  communism  of,  168,  189; 
theory  of  the  family,  170,  178; 
his  means  to  social  unity,  177, 
179;  economic  theories  of,  191- 
192;  his  relation  to  Harrington, 
165,  189;  his  importance  as  a 
philosopher,  192. 

Capital,  growth  of  industrial,  44, 
47t  77-78;  ^d  labor  exploita- 
tion, 78. 

Capitalistic  period,  beginnings  of, 
68,  77-78. 

Chappius,  a  contemporary  of  Lin- 
guet,  198. 

Christian  Fathers,  teachings  of, 
39;  optimism  of,  329. 

Chronology  of  socialistic  schools,  39. 

Cicero,  his  theory  of  primitive  man, 

6s- 

City-state,  advocated  by  More,  128; 

fitness  for  a  scheme  of  socialism, 

30;   spread  of  modern  municipal 

socialism,     321;      Campanella's 

theory  of,  174. 

Clark's  theory  of  distribution,   14. 
Class-conflict,  opening  of,  41,   70; 

effect  of  great  plague  on,  69-70; 

relation  to  socialism,  31-32,  316. 
Class-consciousness     awakened    in 

England,  69;      evidences    of,  in 

France,  276,  296. 
Class-solidarity,  causes  leading  to, 

3i.  72-73- 

Class-struggle,  opening  of,  41,  320; 
discussed  by  French  radicals, 
276;  Boissel  discusses  the,  283; 
Babeuf  gives  causes  of,  295. 

Colet  quoted  by  More,  56. 

Collectivism  defined,  13,  15;  com- 
pared with  socialism,  15;  of 
Pecqueur  and  Vidal,  41 ;  of 
Morelly,  264. 

Communism,  definition  of,  u,  259; 
advantages  of,  in,  291;  based 
upon  philanthropy,  15;  relation 
to  socialism,  1 1 ;  More's  attitude 
to,  106;  Bacon's  theory  of,  186; 
Campanella  a  moderate,  169; 
social  changes  it  presupposes,  260 ; 
compared  with  orthodox  eco- 


nomics, 12;  of  the  French  Revo- 
lution, 277-278,  391. 

Communistic  experiments,  324-325. 

"Conspicuous  waste"  lacking  under 
socialism,  28;  luxury  theory  of 
More,  122. 

Crimes,  causes  of,  discussed  by  More, 
102;  irresponsibility  of  the  crimi- 
nal, 103;  relation  of  property  to, 
104;  de  Maistre's  theory  of,  104; 
of  the  French  Revolution,  281. 

Democracy  and  Communism  com- 
pared, 259. 

Democracy,  its  effect  on  radical 
socialism,  322. 

Division  of  labor  and  socialism,  318; 
More's  theory  of,  113,  115,  123; 
theory  of  Plato  concerning,  113. 

D'Holbach,  theories  of,  200,  207. 

D'Holbach,  theory  of  sensational 
knowledge,  234. 

Economic  interpretation  of  history, 
31-33,  189;  its  debt  to  eighteenth- 
century  thought,  33,  205,  2ii ; 
Ferraz  quoted  on  this,  210. 

"Economic  Man,"  teachings  of  so- 
cialism on,  120,  182,  221. 

Economy  of  consumption,  45;  its 
relation  to  communism,  45. 

Educational  schemes  of  Morelly, 
271;  his  plan  for  technical 
schools,  272;  he  advocated  public 
schools,  272;  Jesuits  and  Cam- 
panella on,  156. 

Enclosures  and  the  social  unrest  in 
England,  74;  their  effects  upon 
labor,  79;  "Boke  of  Surveying" 
on,  80,  97;  effects  on  rent  and 
prices,  81, 97 ;  an  extension  of  prop- 
erty-right, 54;  and  the  industrial 
revolution,  78;  More  on  their 
evils,  94-96;  relation  to  com- 
munism, 83;  rate  of  enclosures, 
75;  attempts  at  remedy,  81- 
82,  99. 

Engels,  contribution  to  history  of 
socialism,  4. 

English  revolution  compared  with 


INDEX 


335 


the  French,  223-225;  absence  of 
socialistic  tendencies,  225. 

Environment  theory  of  evil,  26,  29, 
143;  a  feature  of  socialism,  26; 
Barnave's  theory  of,  308;  Mo- 
relly's  theory,  256;  Owen's  use 
of  it,  256;  modern  aspects  of, 
328-329. 

Erasmus  concerning  More,  56. 

Evolutionary  notions  absent  in  early 
socialism,  219,  222. 

Evolution  and  socialism,  315. 

Family,  More's  theory  of,  112,  124; 
its  connection  with  property,  113, 
170;  as  a  basis  for  social  unity, 
177;  Plato's  theory  of,  177;  size 
of  family  discussed,  123;  control 
by  the  state,  123,  171;  Cam- 
panella's  theory  of,  170;  theory 
of  Morelly  on,  271;  teachings  of 
Boissel  on,  287-288;  theory  of 
Saint- Just,  298;  present  attitude 
toward,  326;  Saint- Just  on,  298. 

Fitzherbert,  writings  of,  2. 

Forwell  quoted,  23. 

Franck,  writings  of,  3,  6. 

Friendship  as  a  basis  of  social  unity 
178-179;  theory  of  Aristotle  dis- 
cussed, 179;  accepted  by  Cam- 
panella,  179. 

George,   land  theory  of,    14,   326; 

Babeuf  on  land-holding,  294. 
"Goodness"  theory  of  man  stated, 

219,  232;    its  importance  for  the 

social  idealist,   232;    relation  to 

doctrine    of    innate    ideas,    219; 

revolutionary  nature  of,  237;    as 

held  by  French  radicals,  233,  235 ; 

Morelly 's  use  of,  252;    the  new 

basis  of,  236. 
Grotius,  theory  of  international  law, 

86;  theory  of  property,  239. 
Griinberg  on  radicalism  in  France, 

381. 

Harrington,   compared  with   Cam- 

panella,  165. 
I  Id  vetius,  place  among  the  French 


radicals,  198;  his  theory  of 
goodness,  233-234;  materialism 
of,  208;  his  theory  of  happiness, 
234;  state  of  nature  theory,  214; 
theory  of  knowledge,  233;  pleas- 
ure and  pain  theory  of,  208-209. 

Historical  economics  of  Knies  and 
Roscher,  257. 

History  and  Socialism,  225-227; 
Ihering  quoted  on,  226. 

History  disregarded  by  radicals, 
215,  256;  unhistorical  method  of 
revolution,  53,  218;  practical 
reasons  for  this,  217;  "conjec- 
tural history"  of  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, 216;  Jowett  quoted  on  this, 
222. 

Hobbes,  theory  of  state  of  nature  of, 
237;  property  theory  of,  241. 

Humanism  of  More,  91;  its  influ- 
ence on  social  ideals,  88,  320. 

Hume  quoted  on  social  harmony, 
231. 

Huss  and  the  Bohemian  revolt,  89; 
"Articles  of  the  Peasants,"  99, 
100;  failure  of  revolt,  134. 

Idealism,  its  value  in  society,  329. 

Ihering  quoted  on  history  and  social- 
ism, 226. 

Individualism,  growth  of,  since 
Reformation,  23;  in  sphere  of 
economic  life,  108,  319;  its  rela- 
tion to  property,  83 ;  pleasure  and 
pain,  philosophy  of,  211. 

Insurrectionary  Committee,  theories 
of  property,  294;  its  relation  to 
Babeuf,  292. 

International  socialism,  its  origin, 
48;  causes  of  its  failure,  317, 
320 ;  conditions  leading  to,  45-46 ; 
doctrines  of  Adam  Smith,  47; 
suggested  by  early  writers,  164. 

Italy,  social  theories  in,  132. 

Janet,  works  cited,  3. 

Jaures  on  radical  socialism,  277. 

Jesuits,  their  relation  to  Cam- 
panella,  153;  communistic  state 
in  Paraguay,  153,  155;  outline 


336 


INDEX 


of  their  plan,  155;  family  theory 
of,  157;  comparison  of  theories 
with  those  of  Campanella,  158. 

Kant's  faith  in  democracy,  217. 
Kautsky  on  Thomas  More,  6. 

Labor  day,  length  of  by  More,  115- 
116;  socialistic  theory  of,  167; 
advantages  of  short  day,  117; 
Campanella  on,  168;  treated  by 
Morelly,  265. 

Labor-theory  of  Campanella,  167, 
173,  181;  of  Morelly,  262;  divi- 
sion of  labor  and  socialism,  318. 

"  Laissez-fairists' "  theory,  19,  20. 

Landlordism,  condemned  by  More, 
100;  its  relations  to  single-tax, 
326. 

Lassalle,  theories  of,  14. 

Latimer's  Sermons,  a. 

Leisure  class,  attacked  by  More,  1 18 ; 
enlarged  upon  by  Campanella, 
172;  theory  of  Saint-Just  on, 
299-300. 

Leroux,  writings  of,  2. 

Lichtenberger,  writings  of,  4;  his 
theory  of  French  Revolution,  282. 

Linguet,  a  radical  socialist,  197; 
theory  of  property  of,  304-305; 
importance  of,  304. 

Locke,  state  of  nature  theory,  213; 
property  theory  of,  52,  238. 

Mably,  place  of,  in  economic  his- 
tory, 300,  302;  writings  of,  301; 
property  theory  of,  302;  analytic 
method  of,  303;  importance  to 
socialism,  303. 

Machiavellian  school,  More  opposed 
to,  86;  theory  of  social  life,  91; 
its  theory  of  absolutism,  129. 

Malon,  works  of,  3. 

"Manifesto"  of  Karl  Marx,  47; 
its  radical  nature,  24,  41. 

"Man  of  Nature"  theory  stated  by 
Pufendorf,  25. 

Marriage,  theory  of  Campanella, 
178;  theory  of  Plato,  171-172; 
Bacon's  theory  of,  185;  modern 


notions  on,  327;  Boissel's  teach- 
ings on,  288;  Saint-Just  discusses 
theory  of,  298. 

Marx,  unites  old  and  new  socialism, 
7,  22,  319;  originator  scientific 
socialism,  41,  42;  his  "Inter- 
national," 47. 

Materialism  and  eighteenth-century 
socialism,  205,  207,  210. 

"Materialistic  interpretation"  of 
history,  205 ;  its  origin,  204 ;  use 
of  theory  of  class-struggle,  32; 
absence  of  class-conflict  in  the 
earlier  period,  33;  teachings  of 
Barnave  on,  311. 

Menger  cited,  5. 

Mercier,  a  defender  of  the  old  order, 
203 ;  his  conflict  with  Mably,  300. 

Meslier,  life  notice,  243;  his  con- 
demnation of  property,  243;  a 
forerunner  of  Voltaire,  243;  his 
relation  to  socialism,  244. 

Metaphysics  of  eighteenth  century 
basis  for  social  theories,  204; 
Campanella,  emphasis  of,  147. 

Militarism,  attitude  of  socialism  to, 
105. 

Mill,  socialist  tendencies  of,  13. 

Mohl,  von,  writings  of,  2. 

Monopolies,  condemned  by  More, 
98.- 

Montesquieu's  theory  of  labor,  48. 

More,  Thomas,  life  of,  54,  55 ;  place 
in  England,  55;  associates  of,  56; 
literary  ability  of,  59;  sources  of 
his  thought,  61,  63;  a  social 
student,  77!  reactionary  nature 
of,  82;  his  attitude  toward  the 
Reformation,  84;  he  favors  the 
New  Learning,  84;  apparent 
inconsistency  of,  86;  his  attitude 
toward  asceticism,  91 ;  humanism 
of,  102, 121 ;  conservatism  of ,  no, 
115;  his  relation  to  Malthus,  125; 
he  anticipates  Ricardo,  126;  his 
importance  for  socialism,  129. 

Morelly,  facts  concerning  his  life, 
195;  writings  of,  199;  his  im- 
portance to  later  socialism,  196, 
250;  method  of,  197,  248;  his 


INDEX 


337 


two  views  of  society,  249 ;  theory 
of  origin  of  evil,  255-256,  258; 
he  denies  theory  of  innate  ideas, 
251;  theory  of  "fall  of  man," 
354;  his  crucial  question,  250; 
his  attitude  toward  history,  256; 
social  motives  discussed,  261 ; 
his  new  "social  unit,"  262;  he 
condemns  property,  257;  general 
estimate  of,  273-274;  political 
ideas  of,  268;  importance  of  his 
social  theory,  258;  his  theory  of 
social  organization,  268-269. 

Motives,  in  proposed  system,  28, 
no;  discussed  by  Campanella, 
1 80;  arise  from  fitness  of  em- 
ployment to  capacity  and  inclina- 
tion, 1 80;  theory  of  Morelly 
concerning,  261 ;  social  instincts 
as  a  source  of,  263;  Fourier's 
theory  of,  181,  263. 

Municipal  socialism  and  early 
ideals,  320. 

National  workshops  in  France,  52; 
lessons  taught  by,  44. 

"Natural rights"  doctrine,  211,  249; 
statements  of,  in  age  of  Morelly, 
sis,  215;  right  to  labor  based 
upon,  52;  involves  right  to  sub- 
sistence, 284;  nature  of  the 
theory  in  France,  213;  present 
standing  of,  327. 

Non-productive  labor,  absent  under 
socialism,  117;  More's  theory  of, 
119. 

Optimism  of  eighteenth  century,  29, 
227,  300;  principles  on  which  it 
rested,  29,  228;  nature  of  this 
optimism,  229;  advocates  of, 
229;  reconciliation  of  public  and 
private  interests,  230,  231;  need 
of  optimism  in  society,  330. 

Owen,  Robert,  environment  theory 
of,  256. 

Peixotto  cited  on  economic  aspect 
of  society,  315;  contribution  to 
history  of  socialism,  5. 


Physiocrats,  theory  of,  19. 

Plague,  the,  its  effects  on  social 
classes,  70. 

Plato,  theory  of  social  control,  17, 
19;  relation  to  Aristotle,  19; 
influence  over  More,  64;  in- 
tellectual father  of  socialists,  64; 
outgrowth  of  his  theory,  20; 
optimism  of,  329. 

Pleasure  and  pain  theory,  of  More, 
12 1 ;  of  French  radicals,  211;  its 
logical  conclusions,  211,  273-274. 
"Polizei-staat,"  German  idea  of, 
91;  More's  idea  of,  91. 

Population,  theory  of  More,  124- 
125;  comparison  of  More  and 
Malthus,  125;  overpopulation 
not  a  socialist  doctrine,  126;  Bar- 
nave  on  dynamics  of  increasing 
population,  309. 

Possibilities  of  socialism,  255. 

Profits,  condemned  by  More,  100. 

Property,  its  relation  to  individual- 
ism, 108;  a  historical  fact,  27,  29, 
107,  284;  justification  of,  in 
"natural  rights"  and  social  utility 
theories,  109;  theories  before  the 
Revolution,  242;  Locke  quoted 
on,  238;  Pufendorf  quoted  on, 
240;  Hobbes  theory  of  property, 
241 ;  Meslier  denies  property- 
right,  243;  theory  of  Rousseau, 
244-245;  Mably  on  property- 
right,  302 ;  effect  of  French  Revo- 
lution on,  278;  stability  of,  325- 
326;  modern  attitude  to,  325; 
Grotius,  theory  of,  239;  Babeuf 
discusses  its  evils,  293. 

Property  theory  of  labor,  Locke's 
statement  of,  52. 

Proudhon,  definition  of  political 
economy,  9;  of  socialism,  10,  323. 

Pufendorf,  the  state  of  nature,  25. 

Race-problem  and  socialism,  320- 
321. 

Radicalism  in  France,  202,  276; 
in  how  far  was  it  socialistic,  277, 
279,  297;  its  tendency  toward  the 
theories  of  Morelly,  279. 


338 


INDEX 


Radical  socialism,  climax  of,  43; 
decline  of,  in  France,  13;  in 
Germany,  12. 

Reactionary  nature  of  socialism,  82, 
188. 

Reformation,  socialism  after,  23- 
24;  attitude  of  More  toward, 
84-85. 

Revolutionary  thought,  its  three 
prerequisites,  68. 

Reybaud,  writings  of,  2,  4. 

"Right  to  labor"  theory,  when  ad- 
vanced, 49;  its  relation  to  right 
to  subsistence,  49. 

"Right  to  subsistence,"  its  early 
appearance,  49;  communism  its 
logical  conclusion,  49;  Locke's 
theory  of,  50;  relation  to  com- 
pulsory labor,  51;  modern 
changes  in,  328. 

Rodbertus,  a  scientific  socialist,  94. 

Romance  of  Travel,  a  source  of 
social  ideals,  35,  61. 

Romantic  age  of  socialism,  38; 
causes  of  the  romance,  35 ;  influ- 
ence of  travel,  35,  61. 

Rousseau,  social  theories  of,  245; 
not  a  communist,  244;  says 
property  is  a  necessary  evil,  247; 
writings  of,  200;  compared  with 
Locke,  245. 

Saint- Just,  theory  of  the  family, 
398;  advocates  public  care  of 
children,  298;  theory  of  property 
of,  299;  on  right  of  inheritance, 
299;  condemns  evils  of  idle  class, 
299. 

Savigny,  theory  of  social  control, 
226. 

Sceptical  philosophy  and  social 
theory,  203. 

School  of  socialism,  lines  of  unity 
in,  21,  39. 

Schultze-Delitzsch,  a  reformer,  41; 
his  controversy  with  Lassalle,  14. 

Scientific  Socialism,  origin  of,  42, 
147;  Karl  Marx  father  of,  43; 
comparison  with  Utopian  school, 
10,  42. 


Seebohm,  writings  of,  5 ;  quoted  on 

More,  56. 

Slavery,  Campanella  theory  of,  167. 
Slavery,  Campanella  on,  158,  167, 

173- 

Smith,  A.,  beginnings  of  cosmo- 
politan economics,  47. 

Social  compact,  right  to  labor  a  re- 
sult of,  52;  held  by  Morelly,  270. 

Social  Democracy,  outlook  for,  322. 

Socialism,  definition  of,  7,  9,  267; 
a  lower-class  movement,  8,  21; 
relation  to  communism,  n,  15; 
compared  with  orthodox  eco- 
nomics, 12;  and  justice,  15; 
its  philosophy  of  life,  20,  30,  146; 
reactionary  tendencies  in,  82, 188; 
debt  to  early  writers,  44 ;  its  rela- 
tion to  materialism,  42-43,  147; 
possibilities  of,  255;  new  prob- 
lems of,  316;  despotic  tendencies 
of  early,  26-27,  I29- 

"Socialism  of  the  chair"  a  reaction, 

3*3- 

Socialization  and  socialism,  45-46; 
early  tendencies  toward,  47; 
influences  of  industrial  capital  on, 

47- 
"  Soci6te  des  Egaux,"  teachings  of, 

290;     its     organ,     Tribune    du 

P tuple,  290;   relation  to  Babeuf, 

291. 

Starkey,  Dialogues  of,  2. 
"Statute  of  Laborers,"  purposes  of, 

71;  foreshadows  rise  of  classes,76. 
Stein,  contribution  of,  2. 
"Surplus- Value"    theory,    a    basic 

principle   of   scientific   socialism, 

13,  14,  21. 

Tacitus,  student  of  primitive  man, 
62. 

Telesius,  the  inspirer  of  Campa- 
nella, 138. 

Trades-unions  and  socialism,  324. 

Tribune  du  Pcuple,  theories  taught 
in,  290. 

"Utopia,"  first  appearances  of,  57; 
translation  of,  57;  sources  of 


INDEX 


339 


thought,  61,  65-67;  compared 
with  Plato's  "Republic,"  64; 
opinions  of  contemporaries  con- 
cerning, 58-59;  its  value  as 
history,  59 ;  the  best  and  earliest 
romance  of  travel,  63. 
Utopian  socialism,  its  unhistorical 
view  point,  218;  compared  with 
scientific,  10,  221-222,  319;  its 
constructive  method,  171,  201; 
periods  dominated  by,  40. 

Veblen  on  the  optimism  of  Smith,230. 
Virchow  and  the  theory  of  evolution, 

226,  315. 
Volney,   a  neglected  writer,   231; 


teachings  on  social  concord,  231; 
optimism  of,  231. 

Wage-problem  in  time  of  More,  81. 

Wants,  primary  ones  as  lasting 
motive  to  industry,  120;  chances 
of  their  satisfaction  under  social- 
ism, 120;  theory  to  solve  social 
problem  by  reducing  number  of, 
119. 

Wealth,  More's  teachings  concern- 
ing, 119,  127;  problem  of  poverty 
a  relative  one,  120;  Morelly's 
classification  of,  266. 

Woman,  place  of,  in  More's  scheme, 
115- 


u  Socialism  grew  to  be  a  very  important  question  during  the 
nineteenth  century ;  in  all  probability  it  will  be  the  supreme  ques- 
tion of  the  twentieth."  —  T.  K. 


A  History  of  Socialism 

BY   THOMAS   KIRKUP 
Third  Edition,  revised  and  enlarged 

Cloth,  8vo,  400  pages  and  index,  $2.25  net 

"  The  aim  of  the  present  book  is  twofold :  to  set  forth  the  lead- 
ing phases  of  historic  socialism ;  and  to  attempt  a  criticism  and 
interpretation  of  the  movement  as  a  whole."  —  T.  K. 


COMMENTS  OF  THE  PRESS 

"  Unquestionably  the  best  study  of  Socialism  in  the  English 
language  .  .  .  of  the  utmost  value."  —  Manchester  Guardian. 

"  A  book  which  should  be  on  the  shelves  of  every  public  library 
and  every  workingman's  club."  —  Pall  Mall  Gazette,  London. 

"  The  chapter  on  the  growth  of  Socialism  has  been  completely 
rewritten  in  order  to  bring  it  up  to  date.  .  .  .  He  is  singularly  free 
from  the  exaggerated  statement  and  declamatory  style  which 
characterize  the  writing  of  so  many  socialists,  and  the  concluding 
pages  of  the  present  volume  show  him  at  his  best.  .  . .  None  have 
surpassed  Mr.  Kirkup  in  philosophical  grasp  of  the  essentials  of 
Socialism  or  have  presented  the  doctrine  in  more  intelligible 
form."  —  The  Nation. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE   MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Sixty-four  and  Sixty-six  Fifth  Ave.,  New  Tork 


OTHER  WORKS  ON  SOCIALISM 


BY   JOHN   SPARGO 

Socialism 

A  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist  Principles 

Z2mo,  Cloth,  $1.25  net 

"  The  '  man  in  the  street '  will  find  this  little  volume  an  up-to- 
date  exposition  of  the  Socialism  that  is  alive  in  the  world  to-day." 
—  Review  of  Reviews. 

"  Anything  of  Mr.  Spargo's  is  well  worth  reading,  for  it  is 
written  with  conviction  and  with  a  sense  of  concrete  life  far  re- 
moved from  mere  doctrinairism.  .  .  .  Anybody  who  wants  to  know 
exactly  what  the  American  Marxian  of  the  saner  sort  is  aiming  at 
will  find  it  here.  In  view  of  the  present  situation  it  is  a  book 
that  every  thoughtful  person  will  want  to  read  and  read  carefully." 
-  World  To-Day. 

BY   JACK   LONDON 

War  of  the  Classes 

By  the  Author  of  "  The  People  of  the  Abyss,"  etc. 

Cloth,  $i.JO  net,  paper,  25  cts.  net 

u  A  series  of  correlated  essays,  direct  and  trenchant  in  style, 
fresh  and  vigorous  in  thought,  and  .  .  .  exceedingly  entertaining 
in  manner."  —  New  York  Sun. 

BY   GUSTAV   LsBON 

The  Psychology  of  Socialism 

By  the  Author  of  "  The  Crowd,"  etc. 

Cloth,  8vo,  $3.00  net 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

Sixty-four  and  Sixty-six  Fifth  Ave.,  New  York 


RETURI 
TO— ^ 

_OAN  PEI 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


DUE 


I 


SRLF  urtARGE 


Libray 


MAY  0  7 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA.  LOS  ANGELES,  CA.  90024 


UCLA-College  Library 

HX  36  G98s 


L  005  698  725  8 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     001  035  135     1 


